Hello torturers:

When asked where Osama Bin Laden was, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he didn't know. "Then he torture me", Mohammed said. "Then I said, 'yes he is in this area'". "I make up stories".

The above from transcripts released yesterday. This is THE guy that Cheney says gave them "actionable" intelligence. Bwa, ha ha ha. Are you guys ashamed of yourselves yet?? Nahhh, that AIN'T going to happen.

excon

Once again the Obama Administration selectively leaks information. Previous accounts of the military tribunal hearings had been made public, but Obama went back and reviewed the classified sections and after some more cherry picking determined that more information supporting his view could be released.What is he hiding? Why won't he release all of the memos as Cheney requested ?

What do you expect KSM to say ? If he lied then why do you believe him now ?

At the same military tribunal hearing, he bragged about 29 terror plots in which he took part. Was he also lying when he took credit for planning terrorist acts we know he planned and ones he planned that were successfully broken up ?

Well after he was waterboarded... March 2007... during the Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing in Guantanamo Bay ,he confessed to masterminding the September 11th attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks.
On December 8, 2008, he and four co-defendants sent a note to the military judge overseeing the tribunals expressing their desire to confess and plead guilty. Was that the result of enhanced interrogation also?. or is he lying about his guilt now even though he wants to freely confess to the charges ?

What do you expect KSM to say ? If he lied then why do you believe him now ? Hello again, tom:

I don't believe anything that comes out of his terrorist mouth... It's actually vice and YOU who believe him - not me.

Or do you want me to recount how much ACTIONABLE intelligence YOU and vice say he delivered?? You guys are silly.

excon

I'll do it for you . He identified Iyman Faris who was plotting to take down the Brooklyn Bridge.

KSM also identified 9/11 collaborator Yazid Sufaat. The 9-11 Report on page 151 says : “Sufaat would spend several months attempting to cultivate anthrax for al Qaeda in a laboratory he helped set up near the Kandahar airport.”

Information from KSM helped capture Hambali .Hambali supervised the October 2002 Bali nightclub bombings.

It is probable that information from KSM thwarted the 2nd wave attack on LA.'s Library Tower.

... and that is just what is public information .Cheney claims there is more in the unreleased documents .

I'm sure he also gave the intel agencies a better idea of the AQ organizational structure .

It is probable that information from KSM thwarted the 2nd wave attack on LA.'s Library Tower.


Just probable? Not factual?

If I had definitive proof of it I would say so. The other 3 things I mentioned are fact.

Coercive interrogation techniques are minimally effective and generally provide counterintelligence. Under enough distress a subject will admit to anything. Statistically subjects are more likely to become dissociative and exhibits various stages of psychopathy after the event. This increases the likelihood of the subject becoming an extremest, sociopath and/or exhibiting other types of socially predatory behavior. The only way to prevent subjects of coercive interrogation techniques from becoming a threat (national or to their own environment) is to permanently retain or neutralize them.

The best way to successfully extract information from a subject is medical interrogation. It has proven to be extremely successful. However the survival rate of the subjects is about 73%. The compounds have a tendency to cause automatic renal failure and/or coronary complications resulting in death.

If "torture" is for debate I do not see the problem in calculating acceptable looses. It may seem "insensitive" however if the subject dies so be it as long as the information is obtained before death.

Death (unnatural and natural) is prevalent in all countries, most people just don't have the stomach to come to terms with mortality.

The "Left" need to get a grip, and the "right" need to be cognoscente of their effect. They are both useless and counterproductive.

If "torture" is for debate I do not see the problem in calculating acceptable looses. The "Left" need to get a gripHello mr:

The only people debating it are rightwingers who want to justify torture. They want to do that, probably to stay out of jail. May I remind you that torture is illegal, not because it works or NOT, but because it's offensive to civilized society.

I don't know what "getting a grip" has to do with the Constitution and the laws of this great country.

excon

Hello torturers:

When asked where Osama Bin Laden was, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he didn't know. "Then he torture me", Mohammed said. "Then I said, 'yes he is in this area'". "I make up stories".

The above from transcripts released yesterday. This is THE guy that Cheney says gave them "actionable" intelligence. Bwa, ha ha ha. Are you guys ashamed of yourselves yet???? Nahhh, that AIN'T gonna happen.

excon

The sucker broke like a rotten egg under a sledge hammer, and now he's embarrassed that the whole world knows it. OF COURSE he's going to tell the public he lied to us. But the kicker is that what he gave to the CIA regarding terrorist operations turned out to be true... which means that for all his posturing, KSM was the CIA's b!tch after 40 seconds of water being poured over his face.

If I was that much of a b!tch, I'd lie about it too to protect my cred with the terrorists.

Elliot

I dunno what "getting a grip" has to do with the Constitution and the laws of this great country.


It doesn't. It only has to do with left-wingers who are trying to reinterpret the Constitution and laws of this great country. THEY need to get a grip.

Elliot

The sucker broke like a rotten egg under a sledge hammer.Hello again, El:

And, you know this how? Because Cheney, of WMD fame, said so? You guys are silly.

excon

Hello mr:

The only people debating it are rightwingers who want to justify torture. They wanna do that, probably to stay out of jail. May I remind you that torture is illegal, not because it works or NOT, but because it's offensive to civilized society.

I dunno what "getting a grip" has to do with the Constitution and the laws of this great country.

excon

Offensive to civilized society. That is funny. What determines a society to be civilized. The term civilized is actually a comparative adjective. Ego & ethnocentric people and societies believe that their actions and belief systems deem them "civilized"

I believe you are referring to the bill of rights as opposed to the constitution. I have no legal knowledge of any kind, but I do believe that there is a distinction, although commonly mistaken for the same thing.

Liberals tend to claim "reason", "law and constitution", "ideals and humanity" whereas right-wingers claim "moral right", "strength", "security" but they both lack the pragmatism to formulate functional solutions.

Real life is not the "American way" it is:


children starving
children being killed if they are unsustainable
the objectification of women
The need to sustain one self by any means
WAR
Child labor
domination
Birth
DEATH


These are all realities of life. Simple and consistent facts that are anthropologically proven and continue to this day. To act as if these things are not facts of life is naïve at best and STUPID at worst. The concept of a "civilized society" is kind of skewed.

All things need balance. Even the kindest leaders need "bad-guys" on their teem to get stuff done. Ideology is great but when it hampers the ability in objectively evaluate things it cripples the ability to... simply... GET STUFF DONE.

Bill Maher and Bill Oreilly are two side of the same coin. Both polarizing figures that skew facts to promote dogmatic, one-sided idiocy.

If torture is offensive to civilized society, what about child abuse, child labor, rape, racism, substandard education, socioeconomic segregation?

If you believe that any of these things are an affront to a civilized society, I would just like to point out all of those things are very prevalent in the United States of America.

So what makes us so "Civilized"?

I have no legal knowledge of any kind, but i do believe that there is a distinction, although commonly mistaken for the same thing... what determines a society to be civilized. the term civilized is actually a comparative adjective. Hello again, mr:

No, I'm not referring to the Bill of Rights, and I DO know the difference.

You want to talk about sociology, and I want to talk about the law. I don't know nothing about that highfalooten crap. I know about the LAW.

excon

Hello again, El:

And, you know this how? Because Cheney, of WMD fame, said so?? You guys are silly.

excon

So you trust the word of KSM, a terrorist out to kill YOU and ME just for existing over Bush, Cheney and the CIA.

And you think I'm silly?

I know it's true because the newspapers were all over the LA attacks that never happened, the UK hijackings that never happened, and the capture of Hambali and Sufaat and Faris. The newspapers, never ones to be Bush and Cheney supporters, were all over the stories. So I know that they really happened.

So... you don't believe Bush, Cheney, the CIA, OR the Newspapers, but you believe the terrorist KSM.

Ok. Just so long as we know where you stand. You only take terrorists at their word, and only when they say they are innocent victims.

Elliot

You only take terrorists at their word, and only when they say they are innocent victims.Hello again, El?

Why not? You seem to believe him when YOU want to. Why can't I believe him when I want to?

Yes, I still think you're silly.

Exco

Hello again, mr:

No, I'm not referring to the Bill of Rights, and I DO know the difference.

You want to talk about sociology, and I want to talk about the law. I dunno nothing about that highfalooten crap. I know about the LAW.

excon


I don't think the term "highfalooten crap" would define any science. I am assuming from your responses that you have not traveled out side the sates much aside from as a tourist.

Since you have legal knowledge, for my edification what constitutional laws are being broken?

And exactly "to the letter of the law" has it been broken?

Hello again, El?

Why not? You seem to believe him when YOU want to. Why can't I believe him when I want to?

Yes, I still think you're silly.

exco

I believe him when there is other information to back it up. You believe him when he's b!tching to the media for sympathy. That's the difference.

Elliot

"An abstract word is like a box with a false bottom; you may put in it what ideas you please and take them out again unobserved."
Tocqueville

I for one an more concerned with the preservation of the American civil society ,and that means defending it against those who's goals are it's dismantling.

"An abstract word is like a box with a false bottom; you may put in it what ideas you please and take them out again unobserved."
Tocqueville

I for one an more concerned with the preservation of the American civil society ,and that means defending it against those who's goals are it's dismantling.

If that is the case there are more actual threats from domestic entities.

Why destroy a country when it does it on its own. Ask Zimbabwe.

Since you have legal knowledge, for my edification what constitutional laws are being broken? ...and exactly "to the letter of the law" has it been broken?Hello again, mr:

This has been gone into ad infinitum right here on these pages. Those discussions are available for your perusal. However, for the short term, I'll engage you.

Article ll, section 2.2 grants the authority to the president to enter into treaty's. President Reagan did so when he entered into the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Consequently, we as a nation, accepted the premise that torture is against the laws... Waterboarding, all by itself, was illegal since we convicted the Japanese of doing it to our POW's.

Clearly, even Bush thought torture was illegal, otherwise he wouldn't have employed the Justice Department lawyers to write the now famous torture memos, authorizing the specific harsh interrogation techniques that were employed.

You, and your righty counterparts, say those memos interpreted torture in such a way so as to make what they did legal. I say, that the memos were written after the fact, with the intent to cover up the crime that was already committed. That makes the writers AND the doers guilty.

As a citizen of this great land, I'm not willing to convict anyone of a crime. I'm happy to let a jury decide. If your side is legally OK, you shouldn't object to an investigation. But, your side does. That makes me think there IS something to hide.

Isn't your side the one who says of the Fourth Amendment, "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about being searched." Yes, I think it IS your side.

Same thing here. If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about an investigation.

excon

If that is the case there are more actual threats from domestic entities.


Yes that case can indeed be made. However ;in the fall of 2001 the external threats were quite real and needed immediate attention.

I say, that the memos were written after the fact, with the intent to cover up the crime that was already committed. That makes the writers AND the doers guilty.

I have seen no evidence of this claim.

I for one an more concerned with the preservation of the American civil society ,and that means defending it against those who's goals are it's dismantling. Hello again, tom:

This is the part that you righty's don't, and apparently NEVER will understand... American civil society is based on equal rights, humane treatment for all, and YES, defending those who's goals are its dismantling. It's actually our CORNERSTONE. If you don't believe me, read the Bill of Rights. It's FULL of rights for very bad people. Oh, yeah. You don't like them either.

When you deny who we are as a society, and start acting like THEM, there's no American civil society left to protect.

excon

I have seen no evidence of this claim.Hello again, tom:

I'm sure you don't. That's why you absolutely should NOT object to an investigation.. That way we can find out who is telling the truth. You DO believe in the truth, don't you?

excon

Hello again, mr:
......

You, and your righty counterparts, say those memos interpreted torture in such a way so as to make what they did legal. I say, that the memos were written after the fact, with the intent to cover up the crime that was already committed. That makes the writers AND the doers guilty.
.........

Isn't your side the one who says of the Fourth Amendment, "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about being searched." Yes, I think it IS your side.

Same thing here. If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about an investigation.

excon

I have to laugh, I find these threads interesting, However for the record I don't really follow the right at all. I believe most of the right are fascists that pry on peoples fear and intellectual laziness.

However it is my belief that the opposite extreme, most of the left, lack the realism to and objectiveness to effectively solve problems.

as far as this debate goes, as I stated in my original post, I believe that information extraction should not be done by torture. But just "talking" and "persuading" won't work either. I am a proponent of medical coercion. Medical coercion has proven to be the best form of information extraction.

If you would take the time to read the initial posting you will see that I know torture to be counterproductive.

My general point is the left and right are the same. The right claims "rightiousnes" and do not value oposing opinions, and the left claims "inclusion" but also does not value oposing opinions.

Right=you live a different life style your evil and anti American
Left=you don't agree with my different life style your ignorant.

my over all point is that both extremes are the same.

If you were into fact then you would not have ran and assumed the right was "my people" and would have considered the initial factual argument.

and so is the separation of people based on dogmatic beliefs. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

I have seen no evidence of this claim.Hello again, tom:

I said earlier that we need an investigation, and we do. However, I think the evidence you're looking for is contained in the CIA document that was supposed to be released yesterday, but wasn't. It's said to contain scurrilous stuff - the kind of stuff that I've been alluding to all along - you know, criminal stuff.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I said earlier that we need an investigation, and we do. However, I think the evidence you're looking for is contained in the CIA document that was supposed to be released yesterday, but wasn't. It's said to contain scurrilous stuff - the kind of stuff that I've been alluding to all along - you know, criminal stuff.

excon

There probably is. But at what point does national security take priority. Which is more important, being punitive or proactive?

One of the many things I love about Obama (which liberals seem to complain about) is his proactive, pragmatic way of dealing with things.

I hope pragmatism wins this debate. Unlike the threads we see here.

there probably is. but at what point does national security take priority. which is more important, being punitive or proactive? Hello again, mr:

National security NEVER takes priority over the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the oath of office says that Obama WILL ".... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...". The founders wrote it that way. If they meant to say something else, they certainly could have. They didn't. I think the intent is clear.

But, that doesn't stop people like you from making up stuff, like the presidents' FIRST responsibility is to keep America safe. Where does it say that??

excon

Hello:

Yes, I have more to say on the matter...

There's this wrongheaded notion that's harbored in some quarters that's personified by the phrase, "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact". Those who harbor that notion don't believe that the law will serve us well in times of peril. Usually these people are the "law and order" folks, but if they believe that notion, then they really don't believe in law and order. They're just biding their time until something better comes along...

O'Reilly said it best, "I believe in our principles, until I don't". To me, principles aren't malleable or they're not principles. They're goals.

Well, after we've been attacked, these people think that's the something better, so we can get rid of all that we've stood for in the past, and start acting exactly like our enemy.

Contrarily, I believe the rule of law has served us well in the past Within our legal framework, we even defeated the Nazi's, who I daresay, were a much bigger threat than the one we fact today.

So, I say again, national security NEVER takes priority over the LAW. The law, all by itself, provides PLENTY of protection...

Lest you think that the Constitution somehow weakens us, may I remind you that we became the world's LARGEST jailer, in SPITE of the Constitution.

excon

Hello again, mr:

National security NEVER takes priority over the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the oath of office says that Obama WILL ".... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...". The founders wrote it that way. If they meant to say something else, they certainly could have. They didn't. I think the intent is clear.

But, that doesn't stop people like you from making up stuff, like the presidents' FIRST responsibility is to keep America safe. Where does it say that????

excon

And exactly who are "people like me". Lol

Neither right nor left. Pragmatic and anti dogmatic. It is shame "people like me" can't just get on board. We need to make up our mind and conform to one polarized extreme or the other.

Tisk. Tisk. Tisk. It is just "people like me" that thought the American way allowed and stood for reasonable debate and distention.

How awful of us narrow minded people. (chuckle)

Tisk. Tisk. Tisk. It is just "people like me" that thought the American way allowed and stood for reasonable debate and distention. Hello again, mr:

I thought people like you had thicker skin. Guess not. You want to play a victim, and I want to have a discussion. If you can't handle the heat, later dude.

excon

PS> It's cool with me if you want to call me "people like you".

Hello:

Yes, I have more to say on the matter...

There's this wrongheaded notion that's harbored in some quarters that's personified by the phrase, "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact". Those who harbor that notion don't believe that the law will serve us well in times of peril. Usually these people are the "law and order" folks, but if they believe that notion, then they really don't believe in law and order. They're just biding their time until something better comes along....

O'Reilly said it best, "I believe in our principles, until I don't". To me, principles aren't malleable or they're not principles. They're goals.

Well, after we've been attacked, these people think that's the something better, so we can get rid of all that we've stood for in the past, and start acting exactly like our enemy.

Contrarily, I believe the rule of law has served us well in the past Within our legal framework, we even defeated the Nazi's, who I daresay, were a much bigger threat than the one we fact today.

So, I say again, national security NEVER takes priority over the the LAW. The law, all by itself, provides PLENTY of protection....

Lest you think that the Constitution somehow weakens us, may I remind you that we became the world's LARGEST jailer, in SPITE of the Constitution.

excon

OK this gets more and more entertaining.

"........Lest you think that the Constitution somehow weakens us, may I remind you that we became the world's LARGEST jailer, in SPITE of the Constitution."

The constant referral to "you people", "your people" is the same type of generalizing that rightswingers do. So based on the extreme tones I must assume you are a "leftist". I was trying to refrain from making assumptions , however it seems unreasonable people have a need to generalize and objectify people that don't conform to their beliefs

I myself find the two sides are simply foolish the right and the left will tear this country apart.

Both sides are to stupid, inflexible, dogmatic. They use different "reasons" to villainize anyone who doesn't agree with there point of view.

We finally have a president that is pragmatic and not extreme. You know he is a good president that may make real changes when both sides "Like yours". (lol. j/k cause the term is so childish and ignorant) complain about him.

Hello again, mr:

.....PS> It's cool with me if you wanna call me "people like you".


You referred to me as "people like you" and I was being sarcastic.

I would argue reason however,

You interpreted me calling you "you people".

You claim I got sensitive even though through out the threads you have: "you people", "your people." people like you"

I think reason is not as important to extremists as dedication to dogma.

Hello again, mr:

Still waiting for you to counter my argument instead of talking about ME. I promise, I'll try to leave you people out of it too.

excon

Hello again, mr:

Still waiting for you to counter my argument instead of talking about ME. I promise, I'll try to leave you people out of it too.

excon

:D (chuckle) The law is the highest of priority, and I believe that it should be respected. However, opening classified files can be detrimental to national security. I do agree that most of the time that "national security" is used as a cover for various forms of lies. However, to open prosicution of previous administration's officers begins to tear down the system. I do agree with Obama that we as a country should refrain from "coerhsive interogation techniques" I also agree that we should not prosecute the previous administration. There are some slopes you just don't start down.

as I asked in the thread B4 which is your priority being proactive or punitive.

and I believe proactive is always better.
Our country is wonderful and standing by our laws is important but when we become obsessed with being punitive we walk down the paths of "thmils"

I know the value of what our country stands for better than most. This country is great but it is not the real world. People that have not left this country and live sheltered lives don't know about the rest of the world.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,

and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So as you see ;the oath is more than a declaration to protect and defend the Constitution.

I know that the issue of inherent powers is debatable ;but if it is ,then every President including Washington has violated the oath according to your narrow definition .

Inherent in the role of the President is the most important area of national security or "in the national interest" .
Generally recognized by both Congress and SCOTUS is that the president has "special prerogatives" in foreign affairs.

Right or wrong ;SCOTUS decided in 1936 that the Presidential powers was "special and pronounced" in foreign affairs .(US v Curtiss-Wright). Even before that John Marshall wrote that the Presidency was the "sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations" .
Before that Jefferson said in 1790: ''The transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether. It belongs, then, to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly.''

The justice dept. memos cite the sole organ doctrine in their rationale and since there is 2 centuries of prescident behind them it is hard to make the claim that the President was not faithfully executing his office.

Congress can make law and SCOTUS can make decisions but unless you can prove your contention that the memos were written after the fact ,then any prosecution will be in itself ex post facto.

mrsinclaire

Maybe this is not the right thred for it ,but I'd be interested to hear the philosophical basis for political pragamatism.Are questions of ethics based on the implied relativity ? Is truth mutable when making political decisions? What are the principles that guide a political pragmatist ?

If I were to vote for a self proclaimed pramatist how could I expect him to vote on issues I think are important ?

From my perspective it was realism (based on Cold War calculations )that justified us overthrowing democratically elected governments and supporting tyrants against their own populace . You are right that Obama is beginning to show signs of Bismarck realism in foreign policy as he embraces the delusional homicidal mullahs in Iran over the popular will in support of some grand bargain that is in his mind .The Mullahs have time and again demonstrated to us that they consider the US an enemy. But to Obama, the Mullahs are people to charm.

Yeah I know... Obama will claim his Cairo speech stoked the flames of popular revolt if it serves his interests ,but I can equally make the case that seeing democracy in Iraq did the stoking .If the revolt is crushed the President will be just as happy to bed the winners.


(btw domestically he exhibits authoritarian statism .)

The law is the highest of priority, and I believe that it should be respected. However....

Our country is wonderful and standing by our laws is important but.....

This country is great but.....

People that have not left this country and live sheltered lives don't know about the rest of the world.Hello again, mr:

We fundamentally disagree! The laws of this nation should be respected, PERIOD - end of story.

It also looks like you're talking about ME again. You've made pronouncements about me, and I haven't objected, except to say that YOU and I AREN'T what this is about. I don't care what you think about ME. If I did, I probably would have selected a different name.

I care about the argument. Get to it, or get lost.

excon

mrsinclaire

maybe this is not the right thred for it ,but I'd be interested to hear the philosophical basis for political pragamatism.Are questions of ethics based on the implied relativity ? Is truth mutable when making political decisions? What are the principles that guide a political pragmatist ?

If I were to vote for a self proclaimed pramatist how could I expect him to vote on issues I think are important ?

From my perspective it was realism (based on Cold War calculations )that justified us overthrowing democratically elected governments and supporting tyrants against their own populace . You are right that Obama is beginning to show signs of Bismarck realism in foreign policy as he embraces the delusional homicidal mullahs in Iran over the popular will in support of some grand bargain that is in his mind .The Mullahs have time and again demonstrated to us that they consider the US an enemy. But to Obama, the Mullahs are people to charm.

Yeah I know ......Obama will claim his Cairo speech stoked the flames of popular revolt if it serves his interests ,but I can equally make the case that seeing democracy in Iraq did the stoking .If the revolt is crushed the President will be just as happy to bed the winners.


(btw domestically he exhibits authoritarian statism .)

Well to begin with the truth is always mutable, only facts are consistent. And yes questions of ethics are based on implied relativity. It is that understanding that supports "Freedom of religion". Facts are never mutable, but fact and truth are mutually exclusive. Political decisions should benefit the whole population, NOT cater to the "values" of one group of people or another. In this country we have media of fear panderers (on both sides) that polarize the populous. Which in turn makes people bias and intolerant of other people with different values.

A political pragmatist will objectively evaluate the situation: weigh the likely outcomes and provide a moderate decision that will benefit the broadest range of demographics.

this will benefit all people but make a lot of people pissed of because they can't get their way.

As for as voting for someone who will vote on isses that you think are important. Are your priorities more important than other peoples? If your values impede those of others do you have the right to enforce them? We all have to compromise to get most of what we want in a fair manor.

That is pragmatic politics.

If we are doing to "free the world" of tyrannical dictators we need to do it across the board. And we do not. To be honest if we tried to right all of the human atrocities in the world every person in this country would be over sees, in the many wholes in the world, with shovel and an automatic weapon.
And once we do choose a country to "free" we do not have the right to undermine or dictate their cultural system. The Arab Muslim world is just that "muslin" (which BTW contrary to American propaganda is a gentile and submissive religion) and their culture is Islamic and should remain that. The human atrocities should be stopped but there culture is based on their religion and that is there RIGHT. There are many that believe the problem with that country is that there laws are religion based, well that is their right. And Many Americans would like our laws to be based on religion, but Christianity.


As far as Arab Muslims Hating Americans that is not the case. I am guessing like Excon you have not resided in another country or been to many native places around the world.

Many Muslims are indifferent to Americans but find their judgment and intrusive nature to be disrespectful and obtrusive.

Hello again, mr:

We fundamentally disagree! The laws of this nation should be respected, PERIOD - end of story.

It also looks like you're talking about ME again. You've made pronouncements about me, and I haven't objected, except to say that YOU and I AREN'T what this is about. I don't care what you think about ME. If I did, I probably would have selected a different name.

I care about the argument. Get to it, or get lost.

excon

What you quoted is an excerpt of my direct answer. The law is paramount. However harping on the punitive, e.g. prosecuting previous administration's officers is counter productive. There are reasons for statute of limitations.

To be direct we should not prosecute the previous administration's officers, moreover we must not engage in torture in the future.

To clarify if it is still unclear. My point in that is to say if we focus on being punitive we are counter productive. Having complete disregard for the law and focusing on being punitive are both destructive.

To assist in clarity:

–adjective
serving for, concerned with, or inflicting punishment: punitive laws; punitive action.

To be direct we should not prosecute the previous administration's officers, moreover we must not engage in torture in the future. Hello again, mr:

If nobody is held accountable for THIS episode of torture, what's to stop future administrations from engaging in it?

Are we a nation of laws? Or do we pick?

excon

As far as Arab Muslims Hating Americans that is not the case. I am guessing like Excon you have not resided in another country or been to many native places around the world.



Now where in my post did I suggest that "Arab Muslims hate America" .
I guess I will surprise you when I tell you that I was in Tehran 1975-76... and that I spent travel time in some European cities and Beirut.



Are your priorities more important than other peoples? If your values impede those of others do you have the right to enforce them? We all have to compromise to get most of what we want in a fair manor.


Well yes , I think people do vote for parochrial interests,and think they have a pretty good idea how the person views issues and have expectations based on the candidates expressed views.

Are you suggesting I should vote for someone without an understanding of their core values and an understanding on how they would lead ? I tell you that if what you say about the President is true,(and I tend to disagree when you claim he in not doctrinaire ), then there will be a whole lot of buyer's remorse .

Hello agian, mr:

If nobody is held accountable for THIS episode of torture, what's to stop future administrations from engaging in it?

Are we a nation of laws? Or do we pick and choose?

excon

Being held responsible is not the same as being prosecuted. We can hold them accountable without prosecution. We are a nation of laws and of reason. We don't pick our laws but we always pic the level of punitive actions. The concept of reason in law shows itself in judges having the discretion on penalties, sentences, judgments and even the validity of the case itself.

We as a country have to get passed being angry at the previous administration, many people seem to want to be vindictive and to "PROVE A POINT" and my question is

Prove a point at what cost?

And I have yet to hear a answer to that.

The concept of reason in law shows itself in judges having the discretion on penalties, sentences, judgments and even the validity of the case itself....

many people seem to want to be vindictive and to "PROVE A POINT" and my question is Prove a point at what cost? and I have yet to hear a answer to that.Hello again, mr:

Well, you'll have to ask one who thinks that way. I'm not one of them. I'm simply not a believer in selective prosecution. I have no point to prove, and I'm not vindictive either. If the judge wants to give 'em probation after they've been convicted, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with being lenient by NOT prosecuting them.

excon

Now where in my post did I suggest that "Arab Muslims hate America" .
I guess I will suprise you when I tell you that I was in Tehran 1975-76.... and that I spent travel time in some European cities and Beirut.




Well yes , I think people do vote for parochrial interests,and think they have a pretty good idea how the person views issues and have expectations based on the candidates expressed views.

Are you suggesting I should vote for someone without an understanding of their core values and an understanding on how they would lead ? I tell you that if what you say about the President is true,(and I tend to disagree when you claim he in not doctrinaire ), then there will be a whole lot of buyer's remorse .

I am sorry for misconstruing your comment of: "....the Mullahs have time and again demonstrated to us that they consider the US an enemy...." I don't know if I would say surprised, reading your posts you seem a bit more focused than Excon. However the above referenced statement seems a bit generalized. So I will apologize for the assumption.

I think it is very important to know were the candidate stands. There core values, well if you mean moral values, that's a bit ambiguous. But wanting a candidate that will "stand for what I believe in" (I being plural) and forsaking others is egocentric. I think people should vote for a candidate that shows he has the ability to make proactive decisions. And of course the only way to evaluate a candidate is to hear what they believe in, how they voted in the past, and where they stand on all issues.

We should ask ourselves will this candidates Ideas help our country as a whole? Will he make impartial decisions?

not

do I agree with his moral values? Will he lower my taxes? Will he help my demographic?

As far as my opinions on Obama, I am pleasantly surprised at his pragmatism, but believed he was voted for for all the wrong reasons.

IDK about buyers remorse. I am not sure yet. I would like to see the Dems & Repubs being mature. But one thing is for sure for better or worse by 2012 our country will have been notably changed.

Oh, I forgot something. Having traveled and living in Tehran and Beirut. You understand why prosecuting the previous administration's officers is a problem. As I stated in my first post I do think we should forgo torture. And utilize medical coercion

Hello again, mr:

Well, you'll have to ask one who thinks that way. I'm not one of them. I'm simply not a believer in selective prosecution. I have no point to prove, and I'm not vindictive either. If the judge wants to give 'em probation after they've been convicted, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with being lenient by NOT prosecuting them.

excon

If the ADA can decide what crimes are worthy of pursuing why can't the same be here?

If the ADA can decide what crimes are worthy of pursuing why can't the same be here?Hello again, mr:

The ADA doesn't choose between WORTHY crimes and the ones not so worthy. That isn't his call. He chooses between those where he can get a conviction and those where he can't. Let the investigation begin.

excon, the unfocused

As for as voting for someone who will vote on isses that you think are important. Are your priorities more important than other peoples? If your values impede those of others do you have the right to enforce them? We all have to compromise to get most of what we want in a fair manor.
...
I think it is very important to know were the candidate stands. There core values, well if you mean moral values, that's a bit ambiguous. But wanting a candidate that will "stand for what I believe in" (I being plural) and forsaking others is egocentric. I think people should vote for a candidate that shows he has the ability to make proactive decisions. And of course the only way to evaluate a candidate is to hear what they believe in, how they voted in the past, and where they stand on all issues.

We should ask ourselves will this candidates Ideas help our country as a whole? Will he make impartial decisions?

not

do I agree with his moral values? Will he lower my taxes? Will he help my demographic?



This is an interesting position. I think that the hell bent pursuit of government "nanny-state "solutions are flat out wrong and have been leading the country in the wrong direction since the 1930s . Therefore I oppose any candidate who's core values (I did not say moral values ) would make them tend to believe these perscriptions are best for the country . Despite the claim that they are weighing all options making pragmatic decisions based on "facts " ,their natural bias/prejudice/inclination/ideology (whatever) favors taking the country in a direction I think has been harmful .

Some historic perspective.
Although the founders paid lip service to pragmatism ;and claimed to despise the forming of self interest parties ;the country did not make it through Washington's 2nd term before political parties were formed based on parochrial interests and basic political philosophical reasons . Our political parties since then have survived or failed based on how they catered to and recruited constituencies into a coalition;not on how open and fair minded they will be.
It can be argued that this catering to interests has served our country pretty well ,although there needs to be reforms to prevent permanent entrenchment of one party or individuals . These can be addressed .


You understand why prosecuting the previous administration's officers is a problem.
Yes it is indeed a slippery slope .In other postings I called it criminalizing political decisions.

I could easily make a case that Bill Clintoon and Al Gore violated American laws and their oath of office by treasonously selling national secrets to the Chinese for campaign funds. While he was in office I had thought this was the only issue worthy of impeachment ;although I'm sure the Clintonoids will say what they did was perfectly within the powers of the President . I do not ask for either prosecutions or investigations now . I am content to let history be the judge.

This is an interesting position. I think that the hell bent persuit of government "nanny-state "solutions are flat out wrong and have been leading the country in the wrong direction since the 1930s . Therefore I oppose any candidate who's core values (I did not say moral values ) would make them tend to believe these perscriptions are best for the country . Despite the claim that they are weighing all options making pragmatic decisions based on "facts " ,their natural bias/prejudice/inclination/ideology (whatever) favors taking the country in a direction I think has been harmful .

Some historic perspective.
Although the founders paid lip service to pragmatism ;and claimed to despise the forming of self interest parties ;the country did not make it through Washington's 2nd term before political parties were formed based on parochrial interests and basic political philosophical reasons . Our political parties since then have survived or failed based on how they catered to and recruited constituencies into a coalition;not on how open and fair minded they will be.
It can be argued that this catering to interests has served our country pretty well ,although there needs to be reforms to prevent permanent entrenchment of one party or individuals . These can be addressed .

Yes it is indeed a slippery slope .In other postings I called it criminalizing political decisions.

I could easily make a case that Bill Clintoon and Al Gore violated American laws and their oath of office by treasonously selling national secrets to the Chinese for campaign funds. While he was in office I had thought this was the only issue worthy of impeachment ;although I'm sure the Clintonoids will say what they did was perfectly within the powers of the President . I do not ask for either prosecutions or investigations now . I am content to let history be the judge.

For the most part I agreed, However, I am not sure it is fixable. At this point these parties are acting more like clicks in a playground than parties for the masses. Our current system has parties refusing to think outside their "party lines" I believe the two party system has out lived their usefulness. It seems the Dem's for the most part are looking for a nanny state, but he repubs are boarder line fascists. And the moderates on both end are treated as malcontents. This system no longer functions.

Oh, I forgot something. Having traveled and living in Tehran and Beirut. You understand why prosecuting the previous administration's officers is a problem. Hello again, mr:

I'm sorry. I miss the connection...

In fact, contrary to your assertion, I'm quite traveled and I speak several languages. Having done so, I don't see how being worldly has ANYTHING to do with why we SHOULD or SHOULDN'T punish our lawbreakers...

In fact, having traveled widely, having visited rouge nations, having seen wretched poverty first hand, having seen corruption on a magnitude that we can only imagine, I see a need for nations to adhere to their laws.. Indeed, I do.

But, that's just me.

excon

Dem's for the most part are looking for a nanny state, but he repubs are boarder line fascists

The Republicans are flawed ;that is true... mostly because they drift from conservative principles . But fascism (national socialism) is a socialist construct mortally opposed to capitalism. Expansion of the state control of the economy is definitely not conservatism but inherently fascist.

and the moderates on both end are treated as malcontents

How can that be when we are constantly told that the moderates and centrists are the majority ?

Hello again, mr:

I'm sorry. I miss the connection.....

In fact, contrary to your assertion, I'm quite traveled and I speak several languages. Having done so, I don't see how being worldly has ANYTHING to do with why we SHOULD or SHOULDN'T punish our lawbreakers....

In fact, having traveled widely, having visited rouge nations, having seen wretched poverty first hand, having seen corruption on a magnitude that we can only imagine, I see a need for nations to adhere to their laws.. Indeed, I do.

But, that's just me.

excon

You missed it because it was not directed to you.

You missed it because it was not directed to you.Hello again, mr:

I missed it because there ain't none. You're an empty suit. You got nothing. Let me know when you want to argue instead of hurl insults...

excon

The Republicans are flawed ;that is true ....mostly because they drift from conservative principles . But fascism (national socialism) is a socialist construct mortally opposed to capitalism. Expansion of the state control of the economy is definitely not conservatism but inherently fascist.


How can that be when we are constantly told that the moderates and centrists are the majority ?

moderates are not the majority that is only the two parties complaining.

How do conservative principles help anyone? It is my opinion that conservative principles are very exclusionary and alienate a whole groups of people. And socially penalize any one else who does not fall into the conservative principles.

the liberals say that their party is drifting away from their liberal principles as well.


The liberal values boarder on socialism (I don't think there is anything wrong with socialism, but that is for another time), It seems that they are looking for a government to pacify the populous, as you put it a "nanny-state" . Which in turn promotes ethical bankruptcy (but again for another thread)

How are either productive?

Hello again, mr:

I missed it because there ain't none. You're an empty suit. You got nothing. Let me know when you want to argue instead of hurl insults....

excon

Oh this is mature. "I am an empty suit", and you claim that I am insulting you. OK, I will continue my treads with "stable" people.

Have a good day

moderates are not the majority

That must mean that the "extremes " are the majorities ?

It is my opinion that conservative principles are very exclusionary and alienate a whole groups of people.

Perhaps ;but when there was a conservative who most faithfully articulated ,and governed the best he could ,by conservative principles;that person garnered the biggest coalition the Republicans achieved in my life time.As the Republicans have drifted to the center their support has eroded .

That must mean that the "extremes " are the majorities ?


Perhaps ;but when there was a conservative who most faithfully articulated ,and governed the best he could ,by conservative principles;that person garnered the biggest coalition the Republicans acheived in my life time.As the Republicans have drifted to the center their support has eroded .

But what of the various minorities that are ostracized by the republican party: Gay, poor, atheists, muslin, women, children, blacks all of the "other" people what of them they are very much Americans and the republican party has consistently objectify and ostracized these people.

But what of the various minorities that are ostracized by the republican party: Gay, poor, atheists, muslin, women, children, blacks all of the "other" people what of them they are very much Americans and the republican party has consistently objectify and ostracized these people.

I don't agree with the premise . But I can only speak for conservativism not the Republicans. We see people as individuals and not groups .We try to live to the ideals expressed by Martin Luther King ;that all people should be judged by the content of their character .

I would say that the American liberal Democrat ,by playing to identity politics ,have tried to permanently bond groups to the party by appealing to as Kennedy said "what the country can do for you " . Once that dependency exists it is hard to break free of . Such a bondage is a soft tyranny made doubly worse by the cynical belief that the act is done for the interests of the group.

ok, I will continue my treads with "stable" people.

Have a good dayHello again, mr:

If you wish to have an idle conversation about politics, then start your own thread. THIS thread is about TORTURE!

I will NOT be dismissed by you on my own thread. I'll be doing the dismissing, thank you very much. If you don't wish to engage me, that's fine. But, I'm not going to stop calling you out on your outlandish positions. No way - no how.

You've been asked countless time by me to tell me WHY we shouldn't prosecute past crimes... You don't say. All you say is we shouldn't. I believe that you haven't got a clue why. You just repeat what you hear from the likes of Rush Limprod.

You have intimated that if I was as smart as tom or you, I'd understand why... But, I'm not, so I'm ready for you to explain it to me - if you can.

But, of course, you can't.

Tom, at least, has put forth the premise that we shouldn't criminalize policy, and we've argued about that at length. But, you ain't got nothing!

excon

Since this thread is about torture, you might want to read this.

This is torture...

The prelude to the "response" below, from Colonel Bud Day, Medal
Of Honor recipient - prisoner of war survivor - reads "I didn't expect
to be reminded of my treatment some 36 years ago on this holiday
weekend but our politicians find it worthy to ignore what some have
tried to recount to them, who have actually been there."

************************************************** **************************
I got shot down over N Vietnam in 1967.. a squadron commander.

After I returned in 1973.. I published 2 books that dealt a lot with
"real torture" in Hanoi . Our "make believe president" is branding
Our country as a bunch of torturers when he has no idea what torture is.

As for me.. put through a mock execution because I would not
Respond... pistol whipped on the head... same event.. Couple of days
Later... hung by my feet all day. I escaped and got recaptured a couple
Of weeks later.. I got shot and recaptured. Shot was OK... what
Happened after was not.

They marched me to Vinh.. put me in the rope trick.. almost pulled my
Arms out of the sockets. Beat me on the head with a little wooden rod
Until my eyes were swelled shut, and my unshot, unbroken hand a pulp.

Next day hung me by the arms... rebroke my right wrist... wiped out the
Nerves in my arms that control the hands.. rolled my fingers up into a
Ball. Only left the slightest movement of my L forefinger. So I
Started answering with some incredible lies.

Sent me to Hanoi strapped to a barrel of gas in the back of a truck.

Hanoi.. on my knees.. rope trick again. Beaten by a big fool.

Into leg irons on a bed in Heartbreak Hotel.

Much kneeling--hands up at Zoo.

Really bad beating for refusing to condemn Lyndon Johnson.

Several more kneeling events. I could see my knee bone through kneeling holes.

There was an escape from the annex to the Zoo. I was the Senior
Officer of a large building because of escape.. they started a mass
Torture of all commanders.

I think it was J uly 7, 1969.. they started beating me with a car fan
Belt. In first 2 days I took over 300 strokes.. then stopped counting
Because I never thought I would live through it.

They continued day-nite torture to get me to confess to a non-existent
Part in the escape. This went on for at least 3 days. On my
Knees.. fan belting.. cut open my scrotum with fan belt stroke.
Opened up both knee holes again. My fanny looked like hamburger..
I could not lie on my back.

They tortured me into admitting that I was in on the escape.. and that
My 2 room-mates knew about it.

The next day I denied the lie.

They commenced torturing me again with 3- 6- or 9 strokes of the fan
Belt every day from about July 11 or 12rh.. to 14 October 1969.. I
Continued to refuse to lie about my roommates again.

Now, the point of this is that our make-believe president has declared
To the world that we ( U.S. ) are a bunch of torturers.. Thus it will
Be OK to torture us next time when they catch us... because that is
What the U.S. does.

Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks that
Pouring a little water on some one's face, or hanging a pair of women's
Pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE. He is a meathead.

I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness who was also in my sq in
Jail... as was John McCain... and we agree that McCain does not
Speak for the POW group when he claims that Al Gharib was torture..
Or that "water boarding" is torture.

Our president and those fools around him who keep bad mouthing our
Great country are a disgrace to the United States . Please pass this
Info on to Sean Hannity. He is free to use it to point out the
Stupidity of the claims that water boarding.. which has no after
Effect... is torture. If it got the Arab to cough up the story about
How he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC... hurrah for the
Guy who poured the water.

BUD DAY, MOH

George Everett "Bud" Day (born February 24, 1925) is a retired U.S.
Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot who served during the Vietnam War.
He is often cited as being the most decorated U.S. service member
Since General Douglas MacArthur, having received some seventy
Decorations, a majority for actions in combat. Day is a recipient of
The Medal of Honor.

Since this thread is about torture, you might want to read this.

This is torture.....

The prelude to the "response" below, from Colonel Bud Day, Medal
of Honor recipient - prisoner of war survivor - reads "I didn't expect
to be reminded of my treatment some 36 years ago on this holiday
weekend but our politicians find it worthy to ignore what some have
tried to recount to them, who have actually been there."

************************************************** **************************
I got shot down over N Vietnam in 1967..a squadron commander.

After I returned in 1973.. I published 2 books that dealt a lot with
"real torture" in Hanoi . Our "make believe president" is branding
our country as a bunch of torturers when he has no idea what torture is.

As for me..put thru a mock execution because I would not
respond...pistol whipped on the head...same event.. Couple of days
later...hung by my feet all day. I escaped and got recaptured a couple
of weeks later.. I got shot and recaptured. Shot was OK...what
happened after was not.

They marched me to Vinh.. put me in the rope trick..almost pulled my
arms out of the sockets. Beat me on the head with a little wooden rod
until my eyes were swelled shut, and my unshot, unbroken hand a pulp.

Next day hung me by the arms...rebroke my right wrist...wiped out the
nerves in my arms that control the hands..rolled my fingers up into a
ball. Only left the slightest movement of my L forefinger. So I
started answering with some incredible lies.

Sent me to Hanoi strapped to a barrel of gas in the back of a truck.

Hanoi ..on my knees..rope trick again. Beaten by a big fool.

Into leg irons on a bed in Heartbreak Hotel.

Much kneeling--hands up at Zoo.

Really bad beating for refusing to condemn Lyndon Johnson.

Several more kneeling events. I could see my knee bone thru kneeling holes.

There was an escape from the annex to the Zoo. I was the Senior
Officer of a large building because of escape..they started a mass
torture of all commanders.

I think it was J uly 7, 1969..they started beating me with a car fan
belt. In first 2 days I took over 300 strokes..then stopped counting
because I never thought I would live thru it.

They continued day-nite torture to get me to confess to a non-existent
part in the escape. This went on for at least 3 days. On my
knees..fan belting.. cut open my scrotum with fan belt stroke.
opened up both knee holes again. My fanny looked like hamburger..
I could not lie on my back.

They tortured me into admitting that I was in on the escape..and that
my 2 room-mates knew about it.

The next day I denied the lie.

They commenced torturing me again with 3- 6- or 9 strokes of the fan
belt every day from about July 11 or 12rh..to 14 October 1969.. I
continued to refuse to lie about my roommates again.

Now, the point of this is that our make-believe president has declared
to the world that we ( U.S. ) are a bunch of torturers.. Thus it will
be OK to torture us next time when they catch us....because that is
what the U.S. does.

Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks that
pouring a little water on some one's face, or hanging a pair of womens
pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE. He is a meathead.

I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness who was also in my sq in
jail ...... as was John McCain ... and we agree that McCain does not
speak for the POW group when he claims that Al Gharib was torture ..
or that "water boarding" is torture.

Our president and those fools around him who keep bad mouthing our
great country are a disgrace to the United States . Please pass this
info on to Sean Hannity. He is free to use it to point out the
stupidity of the claims that water boarding ..which has no after
effect... is torture. If it got the Arab to cough up the story about
how he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC ... hurrah for the
guy who poured the water.

BUD DAY, MOH

George Everett "Bud" Day (born February 24, 1925) is a retired U.S.
Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot who served during the Vietnam War.
He is often cited as being the most decorated U.S. service member
since General Douglas MacArthur, having received some seventy
decorations, a majority for actions in combat. Day is a recipient of
the Medal of Honor.

I would not blow off water boarding as a form of torture. And what is described above is also torture. Neither of them is acceptable. But I do agree that the way this subject is being tossed around is insulting to all of those who have gone and go through violent and extreme forms of torture.

Questioning policies that our country has is not disgracing our country, one of the many things that are great about he country is the ability and right of dissention.

I don't agree with the premise . But I can only speak for conservativism not the Republicans. We see people as individuals and not groups .We try to live to the ideals expressed by Martin Luther King ;that all people should be judged by the content of their character .

I would say that the American liberal Democrat ,by playing to identity politics ,have tried to permanently bond groups to the party by appealing to as Kennedy said "what the country can do for you " . Once that dependency exists it is hard to break free of . Such a bondage is a soft tyranny made doubly worse by the cynical belief that the act is done for the interests of the group.

Although we may not agree on this and possibly many other issues. You make solid arguments and I enjoy the thread. I would like to know your opinions on the other subjects, I hope to see other threads.: abortion, Gay marriage, Health care, Immigration.

Especially considering you are a conservative (I hope that is an accurate assumption)

Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks that pouring a little water on some one's face, or hanging a pair of womens pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE. He is a meathead.Hello gal:

I respect his service and his medals, but it don't take no genius to win medals. If he'd bothered to discuss the facts about what we did, instead of minimizing it, like Sean Hannity does, he'd have a lot more credibility with me. Plus, he appears to be saying that it can only be torture if it rises to the level of what he experienced.

That's ridiculous on its face. Indeed, even the writers of the torture memos themselves, declare 40 seconds of waterboarding to be torture.

He's the meathead.

excon

This is a significant observation.

Now, the point of this is that our make-believe president has declared
To the world that we ( U.S. ) are a bunch of torturers.. Thus it will
Be OK to torture us next time when they catch us... because that is
What the U.S. does.

By calling what was done at Gitmo torture, our pres has surrendered any right to complain about other countries engaging in torture against our people. Not good.

Hello again, mr:

We fundamentally disagree! The laws of this nation should be respected, PERIOD - end of story.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned, excon. You want us to do the same.

What use is it to follow the laws of a nation if doing so DESTROYS that nation? You have not answered this fundamental question. You have said that it is better to to risk the destruction of the nation than to disobey it's laws.

Except when it comes to drug laws, of course. Then you suddenly are interested in breaking the laws that are inconvenient to your desires. "It's the law" is only an important argument for you at certain times, and not at others. But we'll leave that to another thread.

But leaving that little exception aside, what if it is your child or wife that dies because the government didn't do EVERYTHING in its power to stop a terrorist attack? Will you STILL argue that it is better to obey the law unquestioningly, without exception, than it is to protect the nation.

And yes, I am personalizing this argument... because the terrorists created 3000 PERSONAL stories of terrorist victims. It isn't an abstract question the way it was before 9/11/01. It IS a personal question that needs to be answered on a personal level.


It also looks like you're talking about ME again. You've made pronouncements about me, and I haven't objected, except to say that YOU and I AREN'T what this is about. WRONG!! You ARE what this is about. So is everyone else on this board.

It was easy to argue that it isn't personal before 9/11 came around. But My dad was in 1 Liberty Plaza (right across the street from the Towers), my brother in law was in Tower 1 when Tower two was hit (he got out fine), and about 60 or 70 people that I had met from a company named Cantor Fitzgerald that I had done some work with. For every one of the victims, for every New Yorker, the question of how to protect the USA is no longer an abstract question. For every family of the victims on those 4 planes it is no longer an abstract question. For the families of the victims who died in the Pentagon, it is not an abstract question. For the soldiers and the families of soldiers of the US military, it is not an abstract question. And for AMERICA it is no longer an abstract question, because it is our reality.


I don't care what you think about ME. If I did, I probably would have selected a different name.

I care about the argument. Get to it, or get lost.

ExconOoooohhhh. Looks like this newcomer, Mrsinclare is getting under your collar, ex. He has pointed out some very PRACTICAL and PRAGMATIC reasons not to prosecute the Bush policies regarding POWs, including the EITs, and you can't seem to get past that fact. Guy's got some skills. I haven't seen you this fired up since the last time I did it to you...

Elliot

Questioning policies that our country has is not disgracing our country, one of the many things that are great about he country is the ability and right of dissention.

Questioning those policies INTERNALLY is fine, and even to be encouraged.

Questioning those policies to foreign leaders and media while abroad is just plain wrong.

Politics ends at the shoreline, Mrsinclare. We do not go to foreign countries and question our leaders (past or present). Or that's the way it used to be anyway.

Every time Obama "apologizes" for the actions of the USA to foreign countries, he is giving the radicals of those countries an excuse to do evil things. They do those evil things in our name or in revenge for what the President has "admitted" that we did... whether it happened or not, whether it was wrong or not.

So I have to disagree, at least in part, with you on this point. Internal, domestic criticism, is fine. Criticism of US policy in a foreign venue by our President is just wrong and just fans the flames of hatred.

You don't air your dirty laundry to strangers. It's rude and personal.

Elliot

Except when it comes to drug laws, of course. Then you suddenly are interested in breaking the laws that are inconvenient to your desires. "It's the law" is only an important argument for you at certain times, and not at others. But we'll leave that to another thread.Hello again, El:

No, let's take care of this little bit of business NOW, because if we don't, you'll bring it us again...

I used marijuana under the supervision of my doctor with a LEGAL prescription. I DO NOT BREAK THE LAW!

But, even if I did, you apparently think that disqualifies me from pointing my fingers at other lawbreakers... It doesn't. I have refrained from mentioning it before in the hopes that you would keep your arguments above board. But, as you said, it's personal, so I guess that means you can get down and dirty. I'm not going to roll in the mud with you.

excon

Questioning those policies INTERNALLY is fine, and even to be encouraged.

Questioning those policies to foreign leaders and media while abroad is just plain wrong.

Politics ends at the shoreline, Mrsinclare. We do not go to foreign countries and question our leaders (past or present). Or that's the way it used to be anyway.

Every time Obama "apologizes" for the actions of the USA to foreign countries, he is giving the radicals of those countries an excuse to do evil things. They do those evil things in our name or in revenge for what the President has "admitted" that we did... whether it happened or not, whether it was wrong or not.

So I have to disagree, at least in part, with you on this point. Internal, domestic criticism, is fine. Criticism of US policy in a foreign venue by our President is just wrong and just fans the flames of hatred.

You don't air your dirty laundry to strangers. It's rude and personal.

Elliot

I do not think Obama is right to constantly apologize in international forums for the "torture" committed by the us. Addressing the fact that our country needs to have an internationally sensitive administration is appropriate. If our practices are brought up by the international community than it should be diplomatically addressed. I personally don't agree with degree to which he is prostrating himself. However I do not believe that makes him a "pretend", "fake" or "foolish" president.
His actions seem to be disarming the anti American sentiment (so far). It is possible that extremest can use our concession to torture as a reason for retaliation. The other argument is that his prostration is placating extremest; removing the fuel from the fire.

I am unsure as to which it will be, but I am under the belief: "walk softly and carry a big stick". (Sorry if I had a "Bush moment" I do not recall the exact verbiage of the phrase)

I do think that if he is going to continue to make this domestic issue international knowledge if/when it blows up in his face he/we will have to be willing to be aggressive on retaliatory action by extremest including utilizing military action. And in my opinion (let me emphasize my opinion, we would not want excon to start flipping out) even covert neutralizing actions.

Oh and this new guy happens to be the new girl ;)

By calling what was done at Gitmo torture, our pres has surrendered any right to complain about other countries engaging in torture against our people. Not good.Hello gal:

As usual, you have exactly backwards...

By TORTURING, and not just calling it that, we gave up the moral high ground. That was the dufus and vice who did that.

excon

And in my opinion (let me emphasize my opinion, we would not want excon to start flipping out) even covert neutralizing actions.Hello new girl:

It's true. We're never going to get along as long as you continue to mis-state my positions. NOBODY here is clearer than I am. NOBODY can articulate their positions better than me. I don't lie. I'm consistent. ANYBODY who bothered to take a minute to read what I've said here over the years, would know where I stand on the issues. I'm not ambiguous.

I've never had a problem with your opinions. But you opine about ME and not the issues. THAT ain't working. As long as you make ME the point of your post, you're going to hear about it.

excon

Hello again, mr:

Yes, I have more to say. The guys who are making nice with you now know who I am, and what positions I take. They know too, that I'm the best one to argue with here because I understand and can articulate a position. They also know that I don't make it personal.

Interestingly, as much as we disagree, we have remained friends over the years. Our arguments have been for the most part quite respectful, although Elliot seems to have gone off the deep end lately.

So, don't be fooled by them. They'll tire of you soon.

excon

Hello gal:

As usual, you have exactly backwards....

By TORTURING, and not just calling it that, we gave up the moral high ground. That was the dufus and vice who did that.

excon

You have proven to childish and a bit unstable, insulting and then accusing people of insulting you. I have refrained from dignifying you with exchange but I will make an exception for this small point.

You shortened my screen name to MR which is fine, however my screen name is not galsinclair. So I you would find the self control to continue to stick to the screen name please.

Unless I am in a dive bar with a bunch of rednecks I do not believe I have ever been a gal.

At least attempt to grow up.

Hello again, mr:

Gal is galveston. Please try to focus.

excon

Hello again, mr:

Gal is galveston. Please try to focus.

excon

Thank you for the clarification.

So Elliot your argument is that since the battle is now being waged on US soil (since 9/11) it is OK to torture?

Because now, its personal?

That would sound really cool if the Governor of California said it. :)

I do not think Obama is right to constantly apologize in international forums for the "torture" committed by the us.

No, that is just one of many things he has apologized for in the foreign media and to foreign leaders.


Addressing the fact that our country needs to have an internationally sensitive administration is appropriate. If our practices are brought up by the international community than it should be diplomatically addressed.

No, it isn't.

When the Russians invaded Georgia in December 2008, the issue was seen as a very aggressive move by the Russians, and was CERTAINLY an issue brought up in the international community, and an issue for which Russia was soundly criticized. Have either Putin or Medvedev commented on the issue in the international media, much less apologized for it? Even if they are willing to admit that what they did was wrong (and I believe that to a certain extent even Putin acknowledges that to be true from a military, political and economic point of view, even if he defends the decision) he's certainly not going to comment on the issue in the international media or to the foreign press. That's because you don't take your errors to the foreign public.


I personally don't agree with degree to which he is prostrating himself. However I do not believe that makes him a "pretend", "fake" or "foolish" president.

He's not pretend or fake. He is the legally constituted President of the United States of America. But he is most certainly foolish. By deliberately emasculating himself in the foreign community, he is decreasing the political power he has in the foreign community. Foreign leaders will cease to take him seriously if he continues to do it. The foreign press already refuses to take him seriously.

Or did you find it to be a coincidence that North Korea is rattling its sabre with nuclear materials on its ships, missile tests and deliberately ignoring international sanctions as soon into this President's administration as it is? They tried rattling sabres at Bush, but Bush was having none of it. He may not have handled N Korea in the optimal fashion, but he handled them AND EVERTY OTHER INTERNATIONAL OPPONENT with STRENGTH, and they backed down (whether you agree with those policies or not, that was the result of those policies). But Obama is placating, prostrating, and self-emasculating... he is showing weakness and the foreign powers are getting the impression that he will not take any action against them.

And that is why he is foolish. A President who DELIBERATELY weakens his position in the international community unnecessarily is a fool. Bush may have been DESPISED by the international community (though I question whether that was really the case), but he was seen as STRONG not weak. He was hated and FEARED, not ridiculed as weak.


His actions seem to be disarming the anti American sentiment (so far).

Really? Have Al Qaeda and the Taliban shown any inclination to end their Jihad against the Great Satan? Have Iranian leaders suddenly decided to stop trying to obtain nuclear weapons? Has North Korea become less militaristic? Has the Muslim Joe (or Yusef) in the street in Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Egypt suddenly become a fan of the USA because of Obama's apologies?

Where, exactly, do you see a secrease in Anti-American sentiment? Is it among the French who were never really a threat to us anyway? That's Sarkosy's doing more than Obama's... and the French were never planning on attacking us anyway.


It is possible that extremest can use our concession to torture as a reason for retaliation. The other argument is that his prostration is placating extremest; removing the fuel from the fire.

The problem is that the fire already has its own oxidizing agents within it. It is self-fueling from withion the radical elements of their own religion. We don't need to fuel the fire for them to hate us, they hated us BEFORE we went to Iraq or Afghanistan. 9/11 proved that. Apologizing only gives the fire a larger opening... the Arabic mentality is that weakness is to be exploited, strength to be feared. Apology is a sign of weakness. This isn't a Muslim thing, it is a DESERT CULTURE thing and is true of every desert culture in existence, regardless of religious background. The weak are to be exploited, their assets used to feed the strong. That is how you survive in a desert. Obama's apology indicates weakness, and that weakness is to be exploited. The fire will continue regardless of whether fuel is added to it or not by our actions... but the fire is held at bay by our strength, not our weakness. That is the mistake that Obama makes, and that is the error in your argument.


I am unsure as to which it will be, but I am under the belief: "walk softly and carry a big stick". (Sorry if I had a "Bush moment" I do not recall the exact verbiage of the phrase)

The phrase is by Teddy Roosevelt and it goes like this: "I have always been fond of the West African proverb: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far[/I]."" I happen to agree with that proverb in concept.

The problem is that Obama is giving no indication of carrying a big stick. The only areas in which he has decided to CUT spending are in National Security and Military spending.

Nor is he speaking softly. He's apologizing as loudly and as often as he can for every perceived or imagined injustice that the USA has ever been a part of, without giving a single bit of acknowledgment for any good we have done.

Are you aware of the fact that in the past several decades, the single largest body of disaster recovery workers around the world has been the US military? The US military has dug out more trapped people, handed out more food and water, built more temporary shelters and handed out more blankets than any other organization in the entire world? Apparently Obama doesn't know that because in his condemnations of US military actions throughout the world, he has never once mentioned that fact. Nor does he mention the 50 million Iraqis and Afghanis freed from tyrannical regimes --- regardless of whether you agreed with the wars or not, those are the real results of those wars. But again, no mention of those facts. He is only interested in apologizing for America, as loudly and as often as possible.

Obama is NOT following the proverb of Teddy Roosevelt.


I do think that if he is going to continue to make this domestic issue international knowledge if/when it blows up in his face he/we will have to be willing to be aggressive on retaliatory action by extremest including utilizing military action. And in my opinion (let me emphasize my opinion, we would not want excon to start flipping out) even covert neutralizing actions.

On this we agree in full.


oh and this new guy happens to be the new girl ;)

Funny, your avatar doesn't look female... Not that there's anything WRONG with that... :D

Seriously, sorry if I offended. I was just using the generalized term "guy".

Glad to meet you.

Elliot

Thank you for pointing out the obvious, I am aware I have nothing. If I needed that to be pointed out I would have stayed with my ex-wife. however thank you for the information regarding my situation.
Oh and this new guy happens to be the new girl Hello again, mr,

So, you're post op.

excon

Hello again,

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon-albums-excon%27s+private+stash-picture336-torture.jpg

Speaking of torture, let's talk again, about the torture photos that Obama is refusing to release, and how they relate to THIS debate.

You DID notice the picture of Neda posted by tom. Compelling, isn't it? I suppose he posted it, because a photo is worth a 1,000 words. You can talk about brutality, but seeing it is eyeopening. The one above is another...

Why is it good to show THEIR brutality, but not our own? If the message is that brutality is abhorrent, then is it any less abhorrent when we engage in it?

If we truly want it to stop, and we truly want to never do it again, then we'd be happy to release the photos. But, we DON'T want it to stop. Fully 50% of us support some form of torture. That's sad.

excon

Is this another Abu Ghraib photo ? We do not dispute that prisoners in Iraq were abused. Prosectutions have already happened in those cases. But unless you are saying that this photo is the result of some approved enhanced interrogation technique and not just abusive behavior by prison guards then you are arguing apples and oranges.

Hello again, tom:

No, it's from Iran. I guess I should have said it a little clearer.

excon

So Elliot your argument is that since the battle is now being waged on US soil (since 9/11) it is ok to torture?

Because now, its personal?

That would sound really cool if the Governor of California said it.

No... my argument is that we are at war and the rules of war are different from the rules of domestic crime.

Regardless of where the war is being fought, POWs are not supposed to be treated the same way we treat criminals. They do not get trials. They don't get to go home after serving a criminal sentence. They are POWs, and they get to go home either when the war is over, or when they are repatriated by our government (either by granting parole or in a POW trade).

Furthermore, POWs that are unlawful combatants (ei: terrorists who do not wear uniforms and deliberately attack civilians) are NOT subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. To the extent that we grant such protections to them anyway, we are being good people. But we are not required to do so.

Finally, the GC defines torture. So do other historical documents. If we decided to torture the POWs at Gitmo, we would be within our rights to do so under the GC, because those POWs are not subject to the protections of the GC. However, we have NOT done that. Again, because we wish to be the good guys.

Instead, President Bush had his legal staff and the interrogators and psychologists at the CIA come up with a list of interrogation techniques which, despite being harsh, do not fit the GC definition of torture or the definitions cited by other historical documents. Specific rules have been set up as to what techniques may be used, and which ones are off limits. They were set up on the basis of the definitions in those documents and were adhered to precisely. The use of those techniques in three cases resulted in a goldmine of information that has proven effective in stopping terrorist attacks here and elsewhere and in capturing additional POWs.

So, in short, my argument is:

1) We treated the POWs within the bounds of the law. Over and above what the law actually requires, truth be told.
2) We didn't torture them.
3) They are not criminals and are not subject to the rules of law as applied to criminals.
4) The use of EITs was not torture and was not criminal in any way.
5) Those who developed the EITs were not acting in a criminaol fashion in any way and attempting to prosecute them is a waste of time and only helps the enemy by highlighting all the reasons that they should hate us (whether real or imagined) to be used as a recruiting tool.
6) Stopping the use of the EITs takes a useful and effective and LEGAL tool out of the hands of those who we have entrusted with protecting us. This serves only to weaken our defensive ability.

THIS is my argument, Skell. This has been my argument since day one. It is unchanged.

The fact that 9/11 made the war personal only serves to show that those who argue abstractly against the use of EITs because of abstract reasons (as Excon does) are in the wrong for doing so, because the war is no longer abstract.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

No, let's take care of this little bit of business NOW, because if we don't, you'll bring it us again...

I used marijuana under the supervision of my doctor with a LEGAL prescription. I DO NOT BREAK THE LAW!

No, you just advocate it for others. Based on your past posts on the subject of drug enforcement, you A) don't believe that the war on drugs is legitimate at all, B) have no interest in punishing anyone who does drugs, C) believe that mandatory sentencing for drug use and drug possession is unfair, and D) believe that the blatant use of drugs is a legitimate form of protest against unfair drug enforcement. No, you don't break the law, you just advocate it. (If you'd like, I can look up the old discussions between the two of us on this topic, just to prove my point.)


But, even if I did, you apparently think that disqualifies me from pointing my fingers at other lawbreakers... It doesn't. I have refrained from mentioning it before in the hopes that you would keep your arguments above board. But, as you said, it's personal, so I guess that means you can get down and dirty. I'm not going to roll in the mud with you.

Excon

You are already rolling in the mud with us. You have already done to us what you have accused us of doing to you. To wit: you have said that anyone who supports EITs is unAmerican, unpatriotic, a liar, immoral, unethical, and complicit in crimes against humanity.

Here are a few of your posts on the matter of torture (Emphasis added by me):


The only people debating it are rightwingers who want to justify torture. They wanna do that, probably to stay out of jail. May I remind you that torture is illegal, not because it works or NOT, but because it's offensive to civilized society.



As a matter of fact, your suggestion that torture is ok, BECAUSE it works, is utterly despicable. Clearly, if saving lives is the only criteria we use when determining whether we should torture or not, it's only a matter of time before you wrongwingers introduce legislation to allow torture for drug dealers, kidnappers and sex offenders. After all, wouldn't that save lives??




So, we waterboarded KSM, NOT because he knew of IMMENENT attacks. NOT because there was a ticking time bomb, but because he was a leader and we just generally wanted to know what he knew...

That's despicable. It's against the law. It's NOT what we said we were doing. You HAVE given up your soul.



You'da BROKE the law!



If one has "principles", does violating them mean one really didn't have them in the first place??? I think it does. America has principles. Some of you, who want to violate those principles, have no idea what I'm talking about - or you're lying. I don't know which.

Bill O'Reilly said that he believes in our principles 99% of the time. But, if they're not principles you embrace with all your being, and all your heart, you don't believe those principles in the first place. You're only giving them lip service...

I think you can tell who these people are when they say unpatriotic things, like the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. To them, apparently, there's a BETTER system out there, that will remain nameless until the last minute. I'd really like to know what that system is? I'll bet it starts with F. Why don't those people tell us WHAT system they'd rather have? Wouldn't YOU like to know??? I would!

But, back to principles. Can I grasp, that because you want to torture, you AREN'T, and have never been REAL Americans??? That you've been lurking in the background for just such an opportunity to OVERTHROW our system and institute something else???

I could. Could you?




Well, if you wanted to torture, and then wanted to pretend you weren't, you'd just change the definition of torture, which is what you did. You're welcome to accept the WRONG definition, made up by lawyers who wanted to give the dufus cover to torture.

They did, and he's sticking by it. So are you.




The LAW the memos authorized ISN'T the law of the land anymore. It's been rescinded. The memos, and the legal argument creating them, have been totally repudiated by the legal community. At the very least, they were bad law. At worst, it was Bush lawyers redefining torture in order to cover vice and the dufus's a$$.

If it was the latter, that's criminal and they should go to jail. If it was the former, they're just dumb lawyers, and there's no prison for being stupid.

In order to find out, though, an investigation must be undertaken, and let the chips fall where they may.

So you are already in the mud with us, excon. You've been there since day one.

But here's a post of yours that I particularly liked:


If we DON'T agree with the laws, and we only obey them when its convenient, then let's have THAT system.

That seems to be your position vis-à-vis drug laws. Just not interrogations of POWs.

Glad we cleared that up.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

You've gone off the deep end. You, who live in a glass house, should know better than to throw stones - but you don't.

I'm not going to break that glass though. Cause I'm a better man than you.

excon

Hello again, El:

You've gone off the deep end. You, who live in a glass house, should know better than to throw stones - but you don't.

I'm not gonna break that glass though. Cause I'm a better man than you.

excon

Don't argue the issue, especially when you KNOW you are wrong on the issue... throw insults instead. Thanks for making my point for me.

The fact is that if you looked at the issue from the standpoint of protecting your family personally, your argument holds no water in the practical world, and you know it. So rather than try to argue from that perspective, you instead throw insults and talk about how I have "gone off the deep end".

Hate to tell you this, excon, but I haven't "gone" anywhere. My position on this issue today is the same as it was on 9/11 and the same as it was back in 1987 when I lived in Israel during the first Intifada. It has not wavered since then. If I seem to have moved further to the right, perhaps it is because you have moved further to the left, and our relative positions have changed. I have not actually changed any of my positions on this issue in over 20 years.

I haven't moved, YOU have.

There was a time, excon, when you were supportive of fighting against terrorists in the Middle East. It was one of the things that you and I agreed on. You certainly would not have granted terrorists the same legal rights as criminals. But over the past 8 years, you caught a bad case of Bush Derrangement Syndrome and your position regarding terrorism changed. Not because we did anything wrong to the terrorists, but because it was BUSH who ordered it, and anything Bush did was wrong, including (perhaps especially) how he treated POWs. Ever since then your political positions have started from that basis... that Bush was wrong and anything he supported is evil, immoral or fattening. The BDS has clouded your position on EVERY ISSUE, foreign and domestic. You made a giant leap to the left. And the crazy part of it is that you can't even recognize the fact that your positions have changed. You think that Tom, Steve and I have gone off the deep end... that our positions have changed over the past few years and that we have gone overboard. But our positions today are, for the most part, exactly what they were 8 years ago. We HAVEN'T changed our positions at all. YOU HAVE!! And as a RELATIVE position, we have moved more to the right, because YOU have moved more to the left. And so we seem farther away from your current positions than we were from your old positions. But that has nothing to do with any movement WE made. It is completely due to movement YOU made.

Really, excon, look up some of your old posts from 2000-2003 and compare them to your positions today. Especially in the case of fighting terrorism in general. I think that, if you are being intellectually honest about it, you will find that I am right on this.

Elliot

My position on this issue today is the same as it was on 9/11 and the same as it was back in 1987 when I lived in Israel

I haven't moved, YOU have.Hello again, El:

Your position is the same. Your demeanor is not. You're mean! You're insulting, and you get personal. I seem to be the subject of your posts, these days. I don't know what happened here other than your personal life fell into the dumper. Maybe if you got that fixed, we'd have the old Elliot back.

excon

Hello again, El:

Your position is the same. Your demeanor is not. You're mean! You're insulting, and you get personal. I seem to be the subject of your posts, these days. I dunno what happened here other than your personal life fell into the dumper. Maybe if you got that fixed, we'd have the old Elliot back.

excon

Excon,

I want to publicly apologize. If you feel that I have been particularly mean, then I promise to examine that in myself and if I find it to be the case, I will try to correct it. I have not intentionally tried to insult you, and if I have been insulting I apologize.

Yes, you have been the subject of quite a few of my posts. That's because you have said things that I wish to respond directly to. I have TRIED (possibly with less than 100% success) to respond respectfully and without name calling, and only by addressing the issues, and only by addressing what you have said, either presently or in past posts. For where I have failed, I apologize.

Fact is, I like you. I don't agree with you, but I like you a lot. We have been friends in the past, and I would like to be friends in the future as well.

So I apologize if I have been insulting.

Elliot

So I apologize if I have been insulting.Hello again, El:

Typical right wing apology... You don't really apologize. You say IF you were insulting, as you apparently don't think you were, you apologize.

Well, STUFF your conditional apology!

excon

Well, I did my part. I can only keep my side of the street clean. If you refuse to accept my apology, that's your deal, not mine.

Elliot

No... my argument is that we are at war and the rules of war are different from the rules of domestic crime.
.......So, in short, my argument is:

1) We treated the POWs within the bounds of the law. Over and above what the law actually requires, truth be told.
2) We didn't torture them.
3) They are not criminals and are not subject to the rules of law as applied to criminals.
4) The use of EITs was not torture and was not criminal in any way.
5) Those who developed the EITs were not acting in a criminaol fashion in any way and attempting to prosecute them is a waste of time and only helps the enemy by highlighting all the reasons that they should hate us (whether real or imagined) to be used as a recruiting tool.
6) Stopping the use of the EITs takes a useful and effective and LEGAL tool out of the hands of those who we have entrusted with protecting us. This serves only to weaken our defensive ability....



I may be late but I figured I would put my two sense in anyway. I agree with most of it however EIT's are not a useful tool. The use of EIT's causes several pathologies that cause psychopathy. The use of these techniques actually increases the Anti-American sentiment, socially destructive behavior (even within there own environment) and destruction of the victims family. Many would say "what about the protection of our families?" but our families are connected. E.g. If a victim of EIT suffers PTSD and can not function with in his family, the family then shares in the Anti-American sentiment.

Again I strongly believe in medical coercion. Medical Coercion is the most effective way of interrogation. There will always be casualties in a war. The benefits of medical coercion far out way the drawbacks. The 60% fatality rate is acceptable, when weighed against the amount of fatalities caused by terrorist attracts, and infighting. Moreover if used on a consistent basis we can fine tune the compound to be less deadly.





....The fact that 9/11 made the war personal only serves to show that those who argue abstractly against the use of EITs because of abstract reasons (as Excon does) are in the wrong for doing so, because the war is no longer abstract.
....



9/11 did not make the war personal. It brought it home but it had been personal for a long time. Just because it was not on our soil doesn't mean it was not personal, it just means that we could ignore it. I am sure if you asked Iraq if it was personal the first time they would say yes.

Make no mistake 9/11 hit home hard I lived in Manhattan at the time and was coming out of the Cortlandt Street station when the second tower was hit. I worked there. But the truth still is a war is personal.

Hello again, mr,

So, you're post op.

excon

I do not think questioning my gender or posting that in this thread was appropriate, but it does speak volumes of your maturity and character. But I will respond "clear and concise."

No, I am Gay. When I came back from Kuwait my wife was a total , my house was upside down and the funding for the research I was doing was canceled. So in short I went from having a lot to having nothing. You can not use this to throw mud or claim
...your personal life fell into the dumper. during other threads (as I have seen you do) Because I am OK with where I am. For the first time I am able to appreciate and have met a demographic that for many years I have only know in conversation.

But I don't think that has anything to do with a torture thread.

You often write that people are attacking you, making it personal, throwing mud but you consistently do it, and bring up peoples personal lives even when unsolicited. This behavior is unstable. If you are unaware of your actions and the paranoid and projective way you claim various types of attacks you may want to invest in the services of a mental health professional.

The way address people is rude and condescending, it is a testament to your character. Although this is "your thread" as you put it, I have decided not to engage you in conversation because of your childish and unstable behavior. This is the second and last response I believe you deserve from me.

So... "Good Night, and Good Luck."

Hello again, mr:

AGAIN, it's about ME and NOT the issues.

I'm fine if you're gay. I'm not fine if you lie to us, and you did. I don't know why and I don't care... All I know is you lied, and then you expect to be taken seriously.

It ain't going to happen.

excon

No, that is just one of many things he has apologized for in the foreign media and to foreign leaders.

It is OK to apologize for wrongs that our country has made, it is a pompous morally righteous attitude that has made us internationally hated.



No, it isn't.

When the Russians invaded Georgia in December 2008, the issue was seen as a very aggressive move by the Russians, and was CERTAINLY an issue brought up in the international community, and an issue for which Russia was soundly criticized. Have either Putin or Medvedev commented on the issue in the international media, much less apologized for it? Even if they are willing to admit that what they did was wrong (and I believe that to a certain extent even Putin acknowledges that to be true from a military, political and economic point of view, even if he defends the decision) he's certainly not going to comment on the issue in the international media or to the foreign press. That's because you don't take your errors to the foreign public.

I disagree. Just because Putin did not address it in the foreign media does not mean it shouldn't have been addressed. Internationally The United states carries it self as the "higher standard" the platinum standard if you will. We have a lot of pride as a people, our higher education is top notch. We attempt to impart our political ideologies across the world.

If we are going to be the Platinum Standard we have to address our actions when brought up. We must make informed decisions and explain them publicly. If what was done is so outrageous that is can't be defended than it must be acknowledge.

"With great power comes great responsibility" -uncle Ben :cool:


The face reference was made because it was stated by another member that he was fake. I do not agree that he is foolish. I just hope he does not continue to go over board.


The foreign press already refuses to take him seriously.

How so?


North Korea is rattling its sabre with nuclear materials on its ships, missile tests and deliberately ignoring international sanctions as soon into this President's administration as it is? They tried rattling sabres at Bush, but Bush was having none of it. He may not have handled N Korea in the optimal fashion, but he handled them AND EVERTY OTHER INTERNATIONAL OPPONENT with STRENGTH, and they backed down (whether you agree with those policies or not, that was the result of those policies). But Obama is placating, prostrating, and self-emasculating... he is showing weakness and the foreign powers are getting the impression that he will not take any action against them.

I am a bit uncomfortable with the level of placating, prostrating, and self-emasculating he is doing that I agree. For now I think he is healing international relations. I do think he needs to make some show of strengths internationally but he must choose that battle VERY,VERY CAREFULLY.

North Korea defied bush as well. In 2006, despite opposition from bush, the UN, and even their ally China, North Korea was doing nuclear materials testing. It took bush a five year negotiation period for north Korea to even be willing to come to the table. It is not a equal comparison until the same amount of time has elapsed.


...Bush may have been DESPISED by the international community (though I question whether that was really the case), but he was seen as STRONG not weak. He was hated and FEARED, not ridiculed as weak.

Bush 1 was seen as strong and maybe despised. But Bush 2 wasn't despised he was seen a an idiot. The international community and many Americans were angry (rightfully so) at a cocaine using frat C student attempting to strong arm and judge the rest of the world.

Obama is not this great genius he just isn't as dumb, ethnocentric and ignorant as Bush 2. It is sad that the bar had been dropped so low by bush and the Republican party. The reasonable, intelligent and pragmatic republicans are ignored of labeled "not true to the conservatives" But that is for another thread.


Really? Have Al Qaeda and the Taliban shown any inclination to end their Jihad against the Great Satan? Have Iranian leaders suddenly decided to stop trying to obtain nuclear weapons? Has North Korea become less militaristic? Has the Muslim Joe (or Yusef) in the street in Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Egypt suddenly become a fan of the USA because of Obama's apologies?

Where, exactly, do you see a secrease in Anti-American sentiment? Is it among the French who were never really a threat to us anyway? That's Sarkosy's doing more than Obama's... and the French were never planning on attacking us anyway.

Even under the bush administration Al Qaeda and the Taliban were growing stronger. They had grown way before Obama became president. Between 2005 and 2007 the Taliban gained civilian support, grew and moved into Pakistan. All with out Obama help.

No Iranian leaders did not stop, but that is yet to be seen. And no North Korea is still a threat.

"Muslim Joe (or Yusef)"? WOW :eek: having lived in Tehran I would not expect that. Muslims are not the "other". And I am not a "Fan" of Obama, but I don't hate him either. The Arab Muslims don't have to be our fans but to be at least not hated. And we are on our way to the latter. You know Islam is not a violent religion frankly there are many surah's in the Quran that speak out against killing. It is the extremest that are twisting the word, but every religion has those: Israili (who wounded Huwaida Arraf, a Detroiter non-violent activist organization confronting Israeli terrorists.), American Christian Army of God began executing attacks against abortion clinics and doctors across the United States. Even Buddhist terrorists.


...they hated us BEFORE we went to Iraq or Afghanistan. 9/11 proved that.

We were in Iraq and Afghanistan before (remember we funded the Taliban when it suited our need) 9/11 which is one of the reasons they hated us.


The phrase is by Teddy Roosevelt and it goes like this: "I have always been fond of the West African proverb: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far].

I knew bush did not say it. I called it a Bushism because bush constantly butchers quotes. And I believe I butchered it pretty bad. But you knew what I meant thanks


Funny, your avatar doesn't look female... Not that there's anything WRONG with that....

Seriously, sorry if I offended. I was just using the generalized term "guy".


I did not know I had an avatar. How do I see it or make one? And no not at all, no offense taken. No apology needed, but thanks.

And nice to meet you as well.

@ETWolverine: I am very sorry for the previous misstatement about you living in Tehran. That was Gal.

And

@galveston: I am very sorry for the confusion.

Gentlemen I did not go back and reread all of the threads. I have been gone a while and misquoted.

Again please accept my apologies.

Speaking of torture, or at least Gitmo, Obama has apparently drafted an executive order that would reassert the right to hold detainees indefinitely (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_detainees) (in another late Friday move of course).

Bet you guys didn't know you were voting for George W. Obama (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/barack-obama-george-w-bush-detainees.html) did you?

He may carry that "big stick" after all. Hopefully he will continue to show some strength. All in good time there is something in the middle of being weak and being a war monger. ET & Gal what do you think?

Hello again, mr:

I'm going to switch directions for a bit, because it's MY thread, and I can...

You DO know, mrsinclair, that the rightwingers you're buddy buddy with, have consistently and vociferously denied that you have a right to get married again, assuming that you'd wish to marry someone of the same sex...

I'm one of the few who supports that right. Not that it makes any difference. I still don't like you much.

excon

ETWolverine: I am very sorry for the previous misstatement about you living in Tehran. That was Gal.

Nah that was me.

nah that was me.
I am so sorry. Really.

@ETWolverine: I am very sorry for the previous misstatement about you living in Tehran. That was Gal.

And

@galveston: I am very sorry for the confusion.

Gentlemen I did not go back and reread all of the threads. I have been gone a while and misquoted.

Again please accept my apologies.

To all I am further mistaken in the above.

tomder55 is the one I was referring to. I apologize for al the mix up. I have been away for a while. Hope I did not offend anyone.

I am much more conerned with thie administration's domestic policies than their foreign policies.

Of course, a serious terrorist attack could change that.

[QUOTE=mrsinclair;1825161]@ETWolverine: I am very sorry for the previous misstatement about you living in Tehran. That was Gal.

QUOTE]

Who, me???

I made a misquote assuming it was you. It turned out to be tomber55. Originally I assumed it was ET, but then corrected it and assumed it was you. However I was still wrong and it was Tomber55. Just a big misreference on my part.

We all look alike lol

Tom,

Funny, you don't look Jewish...

Elliot :)

Depends upon which part of my anatomy you look at.

depends upon which part of my anatomy you look at.

Rofl! :D