Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2009 > January > 15 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USNo torture prosecution, but let’s find the truth
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Susan Crawford did her country a big favor by telling us what we already knew: The United States of America — our nation, a country that has long taken justified pride in its role as a champion of human rights — tortured suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.
“I sympathize with the intelligence gatherers in those days after 9/11, not knowing what was coming next and trying to gain information to keep us safe,” Crawford told the Washington Post. “But there still has to be a line that we should not cross. And unfortunately what this has done, I think, has tainted everything going forward.”
What makes that statement notable is Crawford herself and the role she plays.
A lifelong Republican, she served as Army general counsel under President Reagan; under the elder President Bush, she was appointed the Pentagon’s inspector general. Those are both important national-security jobs. Under the current Bush administration, Crawford was appointed to a third major national security role, overseeing the military commissions created to try prisoners at Guantanamo.
What she discovered in that job left her aghast.
“It did shock me,” she said. “I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it.”
President-elect Barack Obama is now left with the task of trying to regain what has been lost and clean up this mess, including closing Guantanamo.
In one indication of the complexity of the task, the Pentagon this week announced that 18 of those already released from Guantanamo have been “confirmed” as returning to terrorism, with another 43 having a “plausible” link with terrorist activity.
There are several ways to look at that number. If those at Guantanamo were really “the worst of the worst,” as Donald Rumsfeld described them years ago, then surely many more than 18 of the more than 550 released since then would have returned to terrorism. Those numbers suggest that we vastly overreacted in imprisoning so many there.
More importantly, counter-terror experts will tell you that what happened at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib has radicalized hundreds and more likely thousands of Muslims, many more times than the 18 who have allegedly returned to violence. It is yet another example of a U.S. policy that has created more enemies than it takes out of circulation.
Obama also faces a decision in how to proceed internally. While torture is a crime under both American and international law, the Bush administration has adamantly maintained that no felony was committed at Guantanamo and elsewhere. It argues in effect that because its lawyers had ruled beforehand that no crime was being committed, no crime was committed.
Personally, I have no interest in prosecuting Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George Bush and anybody else. It would be unfair to turn them into convenient scapegoats for our collective national guilt. Yes, some Americans did protest the use of torture; yes, some brave American lawyers did challenge their own government in defense of basic human rights. But they were the exceptions, not the rule.
What was done in Guantanamo was not a secret to the American people, and it was supported at the time by a substantial majority of us. The shame is ours as a nation and should not be shunted off onto individuals. That would merely compound our hypocrisy.
However, lack of prosecution should not be an excuse to hide the truth from ourselves. We ought to know — we need to know — exactly what was done in our name. A commission should be empowered to give us what the piecemeal testimony of Crawford and others cannot, a comprehensive look at just what we did, to whom and why. If there is testimony that such steps were necessary, we should hear that too.
Because dark secrets lose their poison when dragged out into the light of day.
Comments
By DB, Gwinnettian
January 15, 2009 7:18 AM | Link to this
“A commission should be empowered to give us what the piecemeal testimony of Crawford and others cannot”
Followed up by a strongly worded letter from Give-‘em-Head-Harry Reid! ooh, that’ll learn ‘em not to do it again!
By AJC/DNC Management
January 15, 2009 7:19 AM | Link to this
The “truth” is that liberals love the terrorists and think they are neat, and would adopt one or two of them and take them home if Bushie would let them, that unchecked evil in the world that he is.
Why would such an awful man deny the libs their very own terrorist? What a nice bleeding heart conversation piece they would make and if the discussion doesn’t go the way you like, have your cuddly terrorist saw off the head of the person annoying you.
And what a great watch doggy they would make!
Stop this outrage now, Bushie!
By Cherokee
January 15, 2009 7:37 AM | Link to this
I disagree Jay. There were many of us who strongly and as loud as we could, protested the Bush Administration’s illegal use of torture. We pointed out the hypocrisy of evangelical Christian support for this activity. We argued with the right wing wacko talkers, like Boortz, when he said he had no problem with torture. And we pointed out the danger when Andy flipped us off as irrelevant.
Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for their crimes.
By Cherokee
January 15, 2009 7:44 AM | Link to this
In fact, Jay, there are some who would say that our treaty obligations require us to prosecute those who brought this stain on our country.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016448.php
By RW-(the original)
January 15, 2009 7:49 AM | Link to this
Reading this “article” one is left wanting for one little detail. That being what was actually done to these prisoners that we all supposedly know was done and is so criminally horrific on our part.
By Curious Observer
January 15, 2009 7:55 AM | Link to this
Ga. unemployment claims surge 174 percent—AJC headline.
Out of work, wingnuts? I suggest a big helping of Family Values at dinner tonight.
By MChammer
January 15, 2009 8:04 AM | Link to this
By RW-(the original)
January 15, 2009 7:49 AM | Link to this
Reading this “article” one is left wanting for one little detail. That being what was actually done to these prisoners that we all supposedly know was done and is so criminally horrific on our part.
The woman was an insider. She knows what was done and it’s catgorization. Thank God above ignorance like yours RW-(the original) has finally been shown the door. Keep being an apologist for those guys. That way nobody on this blog can possibly forget what a mental midgets you and others of your ilk truly are.
By Disgusted
January 15, 2009 8:05 AM | Link to this
Reading this “article” one is left wanting for one little detail. That being what was actually done to these prisoners that we all supposedly know was done and is so criminally horrific on our part.
If you had bothered to read any national publication or even watch news analyses on cable TV, you would know what was done to these prisoners, moron. Waterboarding. Sleep deprivation for up to 20 days at a time—a life-threatening maneuver. Confinement in super-cold rooms for days at a time. Is that enough for ya, or do we need to bring in Dick Cheney to explain how humanitarian the gestures of the US personnel at Gitmo were? I hope that you, as an enabler, go on trial along with Bush and Cheney when justice takes its course.
By Mrs. Godzilla
January 15, 2009 8:06 AM | Link to this
Obama said it was Holder’s call whether to prosecute Bush administration officials.
Eric Holder is my new best friend. He’s also the new best friend of the millions of us who have been hollering at the tops of lungs that torture is plain evil and it does not work.
This ain’t going away any time soon.
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 8:09 AM | Link to this
Ditto, Cherokee. How can we claim to be anything better than anyone else who would resort to torture or killing of innocent people. The Bush administration and all that support their ways are not the sort of people that I wish to ever be associated with. They have taken words such as honor, integrity, truth, justice, etc., and defecated on them in the name of we the people. Now we all have to bear that cross but it is not a cross of all our making. They make flag burners look like saints.
By RW-(the original)
January 15, 2009 8:19 AM | Link to this
I see we’re still advertising the January 3rd UGA/Mizzzou round ball game here at the AJC. It mist suck to have to run a fake ad rotation to pretend you aren’t going under.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{{{Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani’s health led to her conclusion. “The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent… . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge” to call it torture, she said.}}}}}—WaPo
One guy and the allegation is that he was subjected to various harsh interrogation techniques that may have had the cumulative effect of equating to torture.
It’s quite a stretch to go from that to saying the US routinely tortured any and all that they came into contact with.
By Ray
January 15, 2009 8:27 AM | Link to this
Only 61 of the detainees have returned to their Jihad? That number sounds woefully small. What is this, some sort of moralist game played by a group of idealist liberals with their heads up their collective arses? It only took 19 Arab males to create the single largest disruption of this country in it’s history. If they had not died, and were available for questioning, I would take all them to the top of the tallest building in town and start throwing them off one at a time until I was presented with what I wanted to know. Do you think they expect anything else? They sit in their collective cells and laugh at their captors for navel gazing. And when released, do you think they will have one speck of remorse for doing the same thing all over again? Probably many of them are planning their next move against the hated Americans as we speak. Wake up libs, this is a different enemy…. this one has no morals, is intent on putting your head on a pole and will not stop until he has done just that. If it would save one American life, we should waterboard all 550 of them. If that one American life was your son or daughter, what would you do?
By Mrs. Godzilla
January 15, 2009 8:28 AM | Link to this
No bigger a stretch than the (soon to be former)President of the United States of America saying “We do not torture”.
Most folks call that a lie.
By DB, Gwinnettian
January 15, 2009 8:30 AM | Link to this
“If you had bothered to read any national publication or even watch news analyses on cable TV”
Dude, they watched 24. And Rome. Torture works like a charm!
By RW-(the original)
January 15, 2009 8:32 AM | Link to this
Mrs.G,
Frankly I hope you do manage to bring charges so you’ll finally have to prove something.
By DB, Gwinnettian
January 15, 2009 8:37 AM | Link to this
“It only took 19 Arab males to create the single largest disruption of this country in it’s history.”
If, after the Civil War and WWII, 9/11was “the single largest disruption of this country in it’s (sic) history” we’re far more f#cked than I ever realized.
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 8:40 AM | Link to this
If it would save one American life, we should waterboard all 550 of them. If that one American life was your son or daughter, what would you do?
Well, I’d follow the due process requirements of our Constitution.
But then, I’m not President Bush.
By Eric1
January 15, 2009 8:42 AM | Link to this
If this crime isn’t prosecuted, no crime should be prosecuted. How is it that our top law enforcement officials are allowed to break the law but no one else is? That clearly doesn’t make sense. If these crimes go unpunished there’s no reason to beleive that future presidents won’t follow the same course. The already have a built in defense. I want to see accountability from our elected officials, all the way from the president down to local school board members. Enough is enough!
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 8:45 AM | Link to this
Ray,
Please refrain from your inappropriate use of the collective in your preemption manifesto. If you want to throw a person off a building, do it yourself. Don’t drag “we” into it.
RW,
Prove what? Please, explain yourself. Provide some links to testimony that counters Crawford’s claims for starters.
By DB, Gwinnettian
January 15, 2009 8:47 AM | Link to this
Mornin’, RW. Just FYI, I’ve never seen that ad you keep talking about. I assume it must be a certain type of browsing history wot triggers it.
By WhoCares
January 15, 2009 8:48 AM | Link to this
So can somebody tell me of any instance where the US complained about the enemy torturing US POW’s caused the enemy to stop doing it?
By DB, Gwinnettian
January 15, 2009 8:55 AM | Link to this
WhoCares studied at the AM Radio Skool Of Axing Irrelevant Questions in Order to Re-frame the DEE-skussion, gave us:
“So can somebody tell me of any instance where the US complained about the enemy torturing US POW’s caused the enemy to stop doing it?”
Pretty sure none of the Germans nor the Japanese we hung for war crimes ever tortured anyone again, unless Saint Peter knows otherwise.
By Corporal of the Guard
January 15, 2009 8:59 AM | Link to this
JAY
I strongly disagree.
I’m really getting tired of hearing all of this whining about fraternity hazing, boot camp discipline and tough (yes tough) interrogation techniques.
I say the Obama Administration should take their best shot at PROSECUTION!
Kind of like when a vengeful Union Congress wanted Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, et al prosecuted for treason but it was never done. The sitting Attorney General and two special prosecutors refused to indict. Why? They were fearful of losing and nothing would have been worse than to have won a brutal war of agression and then lost the seccession question in a court of law!
*Time to put up or shut up! *
By Syed Abid
January 15, 2009 9:00 AM | Link to this
It is so sad that America the torch bearer of freedom and human rights has turned into just like any other 3rd.world country.Our leaders for last 8 years willingly allowed torture and knowingly denied it. I was watching fox news the other day when Mr.oreily was trying to justify torture by showing a clip from tv drama 24.I guess when we have convesation with anybody outside of this country,we can always tell them that 24 is not fiction .it is a documentary about American real justice system. After all said i still blv.that we still have enough people who will deplore last 8 years of constant election campaign where everything goes as long u r republican and hate everything which is not white and dont have accent or money .
By RW-(the original)
January 15, 2009 9:00 AM | Link to this
DB,
Any time you refresh the page a banner ad hits the top of the screen. Suntrust is up there at the moment.
Just what sort of browsing history do you suppose would trigger an ad for buying tickets to a basketball game that was played two weeks ago?
Taxpayer,
Just read the WaPo story and Susan Crawford’s own words. She says that a cumulative effect of various methods rises to torture in her mind. That’s going to be quite a leap to prosecute someone for authorizing or carrying out torture.
By DB, Gwinnettian
January 15, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this
“Just what sort of browsing history do you suppose would trigger an ad for buying tickets to a basketball game that was played two weeks ago?”
Goat porn. Duh.
By Ray
January 15, 2009 9:07 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer,
So sorry, don’t know what got into me. This just happens to be a “we” thing, my friend, or are you part of the navel gazing crowd who just armchairs and doesn’t get their hands dirty. Sit from afar, judge those who are trying to protect you and by all means, keep it clean and don’t offend anyone. Oh, if this were a clean scenario….. but it isn’t. Far from it. This very determined enemy has been held at bay for some time now due to the efforts of Bush and Cheney and others like them. It only takes a small number to create the kind of chaos that stops a nation in it’s tracks. Spain, Indonesia, the United States, Israel, France…. this is just the beginning. And you want to hold their hands and sing Kumbaya together. Wake up while you still can.
By Eric1
January 15, 2009 9:09 AM | Link to this
Way too much is being made of “foreign terrorists”. The likelyhood of any of us being harmed by such spooks is extremely remote. If you want to go after terrorists, how about the hoodlums in our streets or the gun weilding “gangsters” in our inner cities. In every major city in the country murder is a common story on the news. Thousands more people are killed by our own citizens every year than were killed on 9/11. Not to diminish the importance of that day, but where’s the response to that? How about the burglaries and home invasions, rapes and robberies that are so common here at home. That’s the terrorism that scares me.
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 9:11 AM | Link to this
I am in the camp of let Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld be tried by the ICC for war crimes. Guilty? Send them away for life. Innocent? We shut up about it for good.
But if Eric Holder wants to take it up, then I support that 100%.
By Ray
January 15, 2009 9:16 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer,
So sorry, don’t know what got into me. This just happens to be a “we” thing, my friend, or are you part of the navel gazing crowd who just armchairs and doesn’t get their hands dirty. Sit from afar, judge those who are trying to protect you and by all means, keep it clean and don’t offend anyone. Oh, if this were a clean scenario….. but it isn’t. Far from it. This very determined enemy has been held at bay for some time now due to the efforts of Bush and Cheney and others like them. It only takes a small number to create the kind of chaos that stops a nation in it’s tracks. Spain, Indonesia, the United States, Israel, France…. this is just the beginning. And you want to hold their hands and sing Kumbaya together. Wake up while you still can.
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 9:17 AM | Link to this
Ray,
I had no problem with going into Afghanistan and taking out known terrorists and their training camps. I have no problems with incarcerating persons captured on the battlefield and interrogating them. Then again, that’s not what we are talking about, is it. If you wish to rationalize that beatings, drowning followed by resuscitation, and other physical abuses that we will not allow a dog to be subjected to is OK, then that’s something that you can live with. I want no part of it.
By DB, Gwinnettian
January 15, 2009 9:20 AM | Link to this
Later, kids. Be good to one another; don’t torture and don’t shoot anyone in the face.
Oh, and my post @ 9.05 was a joke, I don’t really think RW comes here after surfing the animal p0rn. Not first thing in the morning anyway. As far as we know.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 9:21 AM | Link to this
Cherokee 7:37
[[We pointed out the hypocrisy of evangelical Christian support for this activity. ]]
Golly, I did not know Speaker Pelosi and Senator Rockefeller were hypocritical Christian evangelists. I mean, anyone who asks if waterboarding is tough enough and isn’t there something tougher we can do?… wait… to then, when the information comes to the public, to act outraged, and… and… horrified…. and…. *shocked! * Well, I guess maybe they aren’t evangelical Christians.
But their behavior seems pretty hypocritical to me.
Mrs. Godzilla 8:06
[[torture is plain evil and it does not work]]
I’d just as soon defer the discussion on moral absolutism. You know, the old “would you steal medicine to save the life of your child” scenario. Stealing’s wrong, saving a live is usually noble. But saving a life by doing something ‘wrong?’ Then the discussion usually morphs into “wrong is always wrong, no matter the intent or result” or “wrong is okay as long as it’s not too wrong and the good outweighs the wrong.
However, regarding “does not work” - if done as a fishing expedition, on whomever is hauled in, that is a correct statement. It is incorrect, however, as CIA Director Tenet stated, if used against someone such as Kahlid sheik Mohammed, who we know, with no doubt, has specific information. He did state the information obtained from the three gave more information than all other programs we had going and saved, I believe, thousands of lives.
Is this the kind of nuance and going beyond the first layer soundbite you refer to as a “Uriah Heep mode”?
Regarding Holder and Obama saying it’s Holder’s call: isn’t this a serious abdication of responsibility on the part of the Pres-elect? Since when does the leader of an administration delegate decision-making on so momentous a decision, one that sets a precedent, especially when he’s just spoken in answer to a direct quection about “looking forward, not back.” since when does he shift that responsibility to an underling?
By @@
January 15, 2009 9:25 AM | Link to this
(((The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman’s cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby’s leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby’s body, feet first, all but the baby’s head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby’s head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.)))
But not always lifelessly, sometimes they’re tucked away in a utility closet to die a slow and agonizing death all alone.
What atrocity were these little ones suspected of having committed? They were in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Three to four thousand of these torturous procedures were being performed annually and the liberals said nothing. As a matter of fact, there are many of them, who, to this day, fight for the right to allow such torture to be reinstated.
So the liberals here can spare me their righteous indignation!
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 9:27 AM | Link to this
Well, we are not members of the ICC. Guess that’s pretty convenient for some.
Anyway, I’d rather we take care of things on our own.
By Corporal of the Guard
January 15, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this
To @@
OUTSTANDING!
You made my day ……….. let them chew on that for awhile ……..
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 9:35 AM | Link to this
The conservative Republican Glenn Richardson, for one, has no problem with abortions either. Righteous, indeed. Stick to the topic instead of rationalizing a wrong into a right or trying to claim that all liberals approve of abortion therefore they have no right to disapprove of torture or whatever righteous indignation you’re trying to lay at someone else’s feet.
By Bud Wiser
January 15, 2009 9:35 AM | Link to this
Our ‘moral authority’ to complain didn’t do much good when the USS Cole was attacked, did it?
The WTC bombings while Billy Boy was in office prior to 911; did we pick up some sympathy chits for that?
How about 911? Work for us there in the aftermath?
What about Daniel Pearl?
I grow tired of listing one continual abomination after the other, when the world had a chance to act, but stood mute.
You bleeding heart idiots can complain about lack of ‘moral authority’ or whatever cupcake term you want to apply to it, and what does it get you? The Cole begets the WTC begets 911 begets 911, etc., etc., etc.
Your so-called ‘moral authority’ is nothing more than a cutesy term you make up to cover your spineless cowardice…. you have no moral authority because you have no moral basis upon which to draw - you murder the unborn, approve of abominations such as gay sex and marriage, cry real tears for cop killers (Troy Davis, i.e.) and so on.
The pigs that troll this site from the left use vulgarities and disparagements that would blush a drunken sailor; where is your moral authority in that?
You do not go into the killer’s lair, take him to a room, ask him what his favorite color is, then turn him loose. When you see thousands of Americans die in one day, or the animalistic brutality of one by beheading live (or on tape), you must ask yourself some very important things….. is the life or well being of this proven murderer and/or assassin worth that of perhaps one of my friends, family members, myself even, or a few thousand more of my fellow countrymen? Could I find out what the animal is planning next, can I perhaps save lives, just at the cost of dripping a little water in this murderer’s face.
If you say that this one life is as valuable or meaningful than anyone you love, that you can prevent further atrocities just by saying ‘no’ to torture, then you are indeed brain dead.
Go back to Neverland, or crawl back underneath whatever rock you slithered out from, because you are a blight upon the human DNA.
By Corporal of the Guard
January 15, 2009 9:35 AM | Link to this
To Mrs. G.
From Yesterday ……..
To Mrs. G.
We can debate whether Paterno was really coaching* at his age or just **watching (he’s basically still there to try to win more games than Bowden and for recruiting) but the real point is in his younger years he played the game as well as coached on the field !
You haven’t.
By Ray
January 15, 2009 9:39 AM | Link to this
@@,
It isn’t just limited to third term procedures but they are the most graphic, no doubt. There are close to 1.3M first and second term procedures performed in this country every year, mostly as convenient birth control measures for people who don’t want the child, at last call, about 92%.
Great post….. sobering.
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 9:41 AM | Link to this
@@: That’s quite a jump, from governmental sanction of torturing prisoners to reproductive rights.
But I guess you dwindling few right-wingers are really desperate to change the subject, huh? ANYTHING to avoid talking about your boy’s crimes.
And Bud: It’s not “moral authority” so much having actual princples and courage. Something the cowardly right seems to have forgotten in their infantile whining for “somebody, anybody, PLEASE do whatever it takes to make me feel saaaafe!”
By Corporal of the Guard
January 15, 2009 9:47 AM | Link to this
We’re Bill Ayers’ bombings torture for anyone?
The fire bombing of Dresden - was that torture for anyone?
How about the big one on Hiroshima?
What about Clinton’s attack on the Baby Milk Factory?
By Corporal of the Guard
January 15, 2009 9:49 AM | Link to this
P.S.
What about Clinton’s and Reno’s torture of those people in that compound (you know, the loud music and all) before it blew up ?
If we are going to work on a laundry list, let’s get it all out !!!
By Mrs. Godzilla
January 15, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this
Paul,
I understand that KSM may have confessed to too much under torture…”He has also confessed to the Bali bombing, which makes me wonder if he isn’t displaying a bit of jihadi braggadocio.” says Robert Spencer of Jihadi Watch.
Information gained under torture is unreliable and then inadmissable. But hey you like it.
Uriah Heep -The character is notable for his cloying humility, obsequiousness, and general insincerity.
Nope. No abdication. The administration has gathered a huge pool of talent, our new “commander guy” or “decider” will delegate. That’s how large operations are run.
By Ray
January 15, 2009 9:56 AM | Link to this
Copyleft,
Hundreds of mostly black males killed in this country every year, mostly by their own. People like John Lewis either ignore or make believe that his is not happening. Where is your indignation? “Reproductive Rights” is just fancy term for legally murdering your young, the only murder that is legally sanctioned by our government who passed laws to guarantee that it would be so.
And you worry about less than 10 savages at Gitmo who were waterboarded to gain intel in helping to save American lives. What kind of fantasy planet are you living on?
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this
Corporal,
Your rants surely do torture the sane but I would not prosecute you for them.
By RW-(the original)
January 15, 2009 10:01 AM | Link to this
DB,
Your libelous rhetoric aside, these ads are a rotation being placed by the AJC servers and even intuitive ads like those places by google are placed based on the content of the web page itself.
Later!
By Liar
January 15, 2009 10:07 AM | Link to this
Libel! RW, really!
By Rusty Weiss
January 15, 2009 10:09 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman,
Perhaps actually including the forms of torture revealed by Ms. Crawford would provide some context to your statements. Then again, context would render this article absurd at best. See, most people when presented with the term ‘torture’ think of means to bring about pain to a captive. When Ms. Crawford refers to the term ‘torture’ she is referring to the following: Standing naked in front of a female agent, strip searches, insults to a detainee’s mother and sister, threatened (not attacked) with a dog, forced to wear a woman’s bra, and having a thong placed on their head during interrogation.
Now, I ask you, when you refer to our servicemen and women being subjected to the same treatment, do you think they’d have any other response than out of control laughter? Most would consider junior high gym class to have been a more difficult ordeal than what one Guantanamo detainee endured. A man, by the way, who was alleged to have been the 20th hijacker planned to participate in the 9/11 attacks.
Ask any of our troops if they would prefer torture by barking dog as opposed to what they currently face when captured by enemy combatants, and I think we all know the answer.
Do you think any of the nearly 3,000 people who died on September 11th would choose insults to their mother, or burning alive?
Is there any doubt that someone like Nick Berg would prefer a thong be placed over his head, or having that head sawed off with a knife?
Get real, Ms. Crawford and Mr. Bookman, and stop promoting the ridiculous notion that our country’s version of torture is somehow comparable to the enemy. This is what’s known as bleeding heart liberalism.
By CommunistAJC
January 15, 2009 10:14 AM | Link to this
Bookman, water boarding is not torture. No one gets hurt and no one is in danger or losing their lives. I’m all for water boarding if it means innocent lives will be spared because of it. I’ve read many comments and I am astounded at the idiocy of these comments saying that captured jihadist are somehow innocent little people caught in the evil cross hairs of America. I applaud Bush for keeping us safe all these years.
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 10:14 AM | Link to this
Ray: “What kind of fantasy planet are you living on?”
One where the Constitution still applies… but don’t worry, you’ll get to live here too as of next Tuesday!
Seriously—yet ANOTHER attempt to change the subject? You guys are really worried about this one, aren’t you? Your boy’s been caught violating his oath of office, AND the Constitution he swore to uphold, so you’re dragging in every side issue you can think of to avoid talking about Presidential Approval of TORTURE.
Nice try, but it’s not working.
Rusty: You seem stuck on the idea of “moral relativism”—that as long as what our enemies do is worse, anything we do is okay. Sorry, but that’s not how it works. America has principles it claims to live by. If we violate them, it doesn’t matter WHAT our enemies do; we’re still in the wrong, and we still need to face the consequences.
Bush is almost as good at ducking consequences as he is at ducking shoes, but the rest of America’s not that lucky.
By CommunistAJC
January 15, 2009 10:17 AM | Link to this
I have a question for all of you pansy little libs who live in a fantasy world of peace at any price.
If Obama shuts down Gitmo and some of the detainees carry out a massive attack on America, who will you blame? Bush?
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this
Commie: Nope. I’d blame a failure of our prosecutors to come up with enough evidence to convict them via due process.
By the way, our “fantasy world” is the one where the Constitution is the law of the land—and it’s now YOUR world too, as of next Tuesday.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 10:22 AM | Link to this
Jay,
Another thought-provoking column. Thanks.
Judge Crawford: It should be noted what she gave was essentially a legal opinion, within her jurisdiction. Other judges would give a differing opinion. This phenomena is was leads to “judge shopping” by prosecutors and defense attorneys. But it is a legal opinion and should be examined on its merits. RW-(the original) cited her reasoning at 8:19 and noted her emphasis on “medical impact.” One can only wonder what her ruling would have been if there had been minimal medical impact with no health impairment. But I’d guess the beatings or duration of some nonphysical means pushed her over the edge. I’ll agree there.
Pres-elect closing Gitmo: fun scenario the last couple of days – Pres-elect seemingly backtracks, Left goes bonkers, Obama then says he’ll sign an Executive Order to “begin the process.” Anyone care to guess how long that’ll take? Or what the final disposition of the prisoners will be?
Not too much to say on the numbers. I’d argued from the beginning for a different process – not Geneva, not criminal law. But the process was messy. Any time you pay off tribal leaders for info you’re gonna get the guy the tribal leader fingered so he can take the guy’s property or marry his kid sister. Shouldn’t take our authorities years to figure that one out.
The “how to proceed internally” is the heart of the matter. Your comments about “the Bush Administration… lawyers had ruled beforehand…” gets back to my opening comment on the judge. Different views, different rulings as the cases work their way to resolution. I agree with the not prosecuting – as a smart lawyer, I think Obama sees the implications for future Presidents who have the majority opposition comprised of partisans.
Last couple of days there’ve been a few comments about the horrible story line on ’24.’ Your last two paragraphs are a rephrase of what Jack Bauer said to the FBI driver. But that means getting down to specifics, not just speaking in grand terms, especially when some have established such lofty, absolutist positions.
I’ll reiterate my position again My position now. Can change anytime.
US military abides by strict rules of conduct. The follow the Manual for Interrogations or whatever rules the civilian authorities lay out. No rough stuff.
Members of enemy militaries, signatories to Geneva Conventions, get Geneva treatment. No exceptions.
Members of nonstate military/terrorist groups are not entitled to Geneva or Constitutional rights. But we can grant protections under general Geneva rules to the rank and file.
Members of leadership should understand they may be subject to nonGeneva interrogation methods when holding authority determines they have information that constitutes a clear and present danger to US civilians.
Such questioning to be done by civilians.
Such questioning, when and how, to be authorized in each instance, by the President.
The “how” to be determined by Congress and the Executive. It can be uncomfortable, but no lasting medical impairment. Khalid’s an example, the 20th highjacker’s an example of how not.
Mrs. Godzilla 9:51
[[Information gained under torture is unreliable and then inadmissable. But hey you like it.]]
Please. You can make your points better than that. Seeing something as necessary doesn’t mean one likes it. Your child breaks a leg. The doctor has to set it. You don’t like the pain your child goes through on the setting, do you? But it is necessary for the recovery. And please, don’t anyone jump in with “can you believe it?!!? He just said setting a child’s leg is the same as torturing terrorists!!!”
Uriah Heep – humble? You’re kidding, right? Obsequiousness? I think I’m a bit more direct than that. Unless you consider not namecalling, ranting etc as obsequious. Insincerity? Is that what you call challenging a position and the receiver getting stuck for an answer? Or is it saying something nice about, say the Bush Administration, then another time criticizing it? Either way, it’s a nice way to try diverting the conversation rather than responding to the points (yesterday morning’s discussion).
LOL! So you’re saying Pres-elect Obama is not a ‘decider’ he’s a ‘delegator?’ I beg to differ on how large operations. Top person sets overall policy, vision. They vary on the degree of detail regarding how it is implemented. But the head of Ford does not say to his VPs “hey guys, we build vehicles. You wanna build hybrids, or not? Have at it.” He makes the decision on the concept (we will or will not pursue hybrids. If so, this is the technology we will pursue).
Obama should make his first hard call and be accountable.
Hey Bosch!
47 hours, 44 minutes.
By Liar
January 15, 2009 10:23 AM | Link to this
If you find that having your head under water until your lungs have displaced all air and you can no longer obtain oxygen from yur lungs and you pass out, just say stop. I promise to stop as soon as I hear you clearly say stop. OK. What? Did you say something. What? Did you say there was something in your eye. Here. Let me knock it loose for you so that it will get washed out during your next bathing. There. Is that better. What happened to your eye. Wow. I’ve heard that some countries would use evidence of such abuse of its people to actually invade them and take out their leader. Of course, that’s just a rumor. I doubt you’ll ever get anyone to confess to such a thing even if you filled their lungs with water and yelled at them, “Talk!”
By Rusty Weiss
January 15, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this
Copyleft,
The argument or ‘moral relativism’ would be applicable when comparing two similar things. Unfortunately, torture tactics used by terrorists and those allegedly used by our men and women, is such an apples to oranges comparison that ‘moral relativism’ does not apply.
For that matter, neither does the concept of ‘moral liberalism’ which includes fighting terrorists through the use of lollipops and unicorns.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 10:43 AM | Link to this
CJA
Jay made a multitude of points in his column. You’ll notice I addressed them separately. Each point, not too long. I don’t find it adds much to the conversation or understanding to reply with “Jay! You liberal hack!!!!” or “Jay, you’re selling out to the rightwing neocon fascists!!!”
You mentioneed Madow in NYC. Just saw him on the news, went to court wearing a bulletproof vest. Smart move. Outside, a protester held a huge sign” “Madow, do the right thing (then, in bright red letters, all caps) JUMP
By Liar
January 15, 2009 10:43 AM | Link to this
After the US goes into Afghanistan and other countries that are known to harbor terrorists and hands out Viagra to its warlords for some information, the warlords will clearly take advantage of the moment to partake of the forty virgins while here on earth instead of waiting for that after-life adventure with no written guarantee to back it up. Now, what a dilemma that must surely pose. On the one hand, all of these former virgins might see fit to give birth to yet another terrorist in which case the US might preempt with a follow-up offering of morning-after pills but wait — such a move would be murderous. Yet, to do nothing would lead to American made terrorists for having given the known warlords the ability to rise to the occasion in the first place. What to do. What to do. It’s almost as bad as that time that Reagan sent Rumsfeld over to Iraq and got caught shaking hands — or was he actually just slipping him a little packet of pills? We need to find out the truth. I say bring forth that cowardly Saddam and waterboard his sorry buttocks until he tells us the whole story behind that Rumsfeld handshake.
By Corporal of the Guard
January 15, 2009 10:49 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer
Exchanges with you are sometimes torture for me also.
Copyleft
You need to change your terminology as you use it in a sentence. I totally agree with you re: reproductive rights. No one has the right to tell anyone they have to/or can’t have children. However, once that child is conceived, reproduction has already occurred!
What you mean is continuation of the birth process rights.
And that is where we disagree.
To All
O.K. Let’s try this another way. Everyone throws around the word torture like it describes everything unkind done to someone.
It’s kind of like using the word kill instead of legal self defense, accidental death, involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, accesory to murder, murder in the commission of a felony, pre-meditated murder, mass murder, etc., etc.
I know where I would draw the line (to save innocent lives) for acceptable interrogation techniques. I believe our government has stayed within that boundary. If others think not then PROSECUTE or shut-up!
Just for fun - one final philosophical thought for all of you who are taking shots at evangelicals. Would a Holy, Righteous, Loving God ever send someone to hell? Is that torture?
By AmVet
January 15, 2009 10:52 AM | Link to this
From downstairs,
Bud Wiper: Your idiotic idol worship over a man who has done nothing yet but deliver a lot of uhm, mmm hmmm uh talk borders on the clinical lunatic fringe.
Most of us here know that to you empirically and reality challenged, emasculated neoliths, facts are completely irrelevant.
I voted against the man, YOUR next CIC, that you loathe so much.
And I hold out no great hopes for Obama, but compared to BushCo, ANYBODY, including McCain will be a gigantic improvement over the clusterf&ck you still shuck and grin for. And that you knuckle-draggers disagree is mere confirmation.
Spin that one, ballerina.
The past two Novembers: 60 - 4.
And while you’re twisting, spin that one, whirling bud dervish.
Five more days until your quasi-criminal heroes are toast.
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 10:56 AM | Link to this
Corporal: “Would a Holy, Righteous, Loving God ever send someone to hell?”
Actually, no. Which is another reason I find the evangelicals’ faith in such a vicious and unjust deity incredible and appalling.
By the way—that’s still ANOTHER attempt to change the subject. What are we up to now, about 56?
By CommunistAJC
January 15, 2009 11:01 AM | Link to this
Copyleft, you should back your statement up with your rhetoric on God not sending anyone to hell. Christians have the written word of the Bible. What do you have? God most certainly will send people to hell.
Answer to your question: YES, God will send someone to hell. Would you like me to back that up with scripture?
By getalife
January 15, 2009 11:03 AM | Link to this
Nobody is above the law and accountability has been lost in this country.
This destroys the legal system.
Specter wants Holder accountable for the Rich pardon but nothing for his party on breaking the law. He was an accomplice on all w’s crimes.
And now for some great news. Diaper boy Vitter was the only no vote for Hillary Clinton. She will be confirmed easily.
By AmVet
January 15, 2009 11:04 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman,
I respectfully disagree. One of Pelosi/Reids numerous failings was to take impeachment “off the table”. Obama, in an effort to play nice, agreed.
And at first, I too thought it was the right call. In retrospect it was NOT.
What an enormous disservice to the American people and the concept of justice.
GWB and Dick Cheney are the most serially impeachable men in modern times.
And in five days their already floundering bootlickers will have no head on their snake…
01-20-09 The End of a National Disaster
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 11:07 AM | Link to this
Corporal,
Your God would never send anyone to hell. Remember. For no matter how many people you kill or rape or how many times you choose to break God’s commandments, all you have to do is basically say, “I’m Sorry.” Jesus loves me, Yes I know…Wow. Talk about an easy way out of anything.
Of course, this is just for fun. Like you said. It would never really happen like this.
OK, now it’s your turn to torture me. Go ahead. Quote some scripture instead of using your own noggin for example.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 11:09 AM | Link to this
ComunistAJC 11:01
[[Would you like me to back that up with scripture? ]]
please don’t… I’m begging you… please… don’t…
getalife
Hillary as Sec of State. Your gal’s back! Whoda thunk?
I think she’s lots tougher than many give her credit for. Kinda in the Thatcher mold.
By david wayne osedach, san diego/ U.S.A.
January 15, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this
In dealing with mass murdering terrorists there should be no holds barred interrogation. All of our soldiers captured in the mid-east go through the same. No less.
By RealityKing
January 15, 2009 11:12 AM | Link to this
“The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. You think of torture. Interrogation techniques used on Qahtani included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold.” Qahtani, allegedly 9/11’s 20th hijacker, was interrogated from November 2002 to January 2003 after being captured in Afghanistan. “There’s no doubt in my mind he would’ve been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in August 2001,” Crawford said of Qahtani, who remains detained at Guantanamo.
Funny how those that whine about the way they are being protected never really manage to lift a finger to help. I on the other hand, fully support overly aggressive and persistent interrogations of known terrorists…, including those dastardly college hazing pranks.
By TW
January 15, 2009 11:14 AM | Link to this
The phrase “war on terror” is misleading and may have done more harm than good as countries around the world fight extremism, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Thursday.
Gee, ya think?
Q - How come we didn’t have a ‘war on rednecks’ following the Timothy McVeigh attack?
a. No money in it b. The pres had a brain c. Would have decimated the GOP
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 11:15 AM | Link to this
So, David… you’re saying we should behave the same way terrorists do? How inspiring.
By the way, the detainees at Guantanamo aren’t “mass-murdering terrorists”—they’re SUSPECTS. Nothing’s been proven. And with the Bush policy of holding people indefinitely without trial, evidence, counsel, or even charges, nothing may EVER be proven against them.
Commie: Of COURSE the Biblical God sends people to Hell. The Bible says so, quite clearly. But Corporal was asking me whether a RIGHTEOUS and LOVING god would do such a thing—and that’s quite a different question.
By getalife
January 15, 2009 11:23 AM | Link to this
Paul,
She is saying goodbye to the corrupt Senate as I type.
She will set the new standard for SoS by her accomplishments.
The Clinton team is back in power.
It takes the Clinton team to clen up after a bush.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 11:23 AM | Link to this
TW 11:14
[[The phrase “war on terror” is misleading and may have done more harm than good as countries around the world fight extremism]]
Well of course it is and has. Many argued from the start it was misleading, as it refers to a tactic, a style, an objective, not who’s doing it. Kinda like calling WWII “the war against the blitzkreig.”
Should’ve identified who the enemy was, from the start. War against Islamic Militants. Then people would have to address who’s behind the “Terror.”
By RealityKing
January 15, 2009 11:24 AM | Link to this
Yeah suspects caught ON THE FIELD OF BATTLE!! But still innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in your eyes right CopyLeft?(eyes rolling)
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 11:28 AM | Link to this
TW,
a. or c. NOT b.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 11:38 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer 11:28
[[NOT b.]]
Even most of his critics give Pres Clinton credit for being a pretty smart guy.
By CommunistAJC
January 15, 2009 11:53 AM | Link to this
Copyleft, I didn’t mean to come off as harsh. Sorry about that. As far as a righteous and loving God goes, there is only one God. What god are you referring to? Just wondering.
Paul, don’t make me! I will! I will do it! Ha. At least you have a sense of humor.
By RealityKing
January 15, 2009 11:53 AM | Link to this
“Even most of his critics give Pres Clinton credit for being a pretty smart guy.”???
Clinton redefine the word “is” during his grand jury testimony! Stupid is as stupid does..
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 11:55 AM | Link to this
Paul,
Glad to hear that you consider President Clinton to be a smart guy. Now, what did that have to do with my response to TW. Wait. Please. Allow me to answer that. There. All done.
By CommunistAJC
January 15, 2009 11:55 AM | Link to this
AmVet, If Obama does prosecute Bush and Cheney then he will certainly have to prosecute many democrats as well. They all signed on to the war and they all know full well what the cost of war was. I still don’t understand how people call this the worst war in history yet Vietnam had triple the death toll and a horrible outcome.
By Corporal of the Guard
January 15, 2009 12:09 PM | Link to this
To Copyleft:
I said that one was just for fun. You are the one avoiding debate by saying I am changing the subject.
So …….. let’s go back to the main premise in my post.
1) Are justifiable homicides (killing) the same as pre-meditated murders (killing)?
2) Are strong interrogation techniques (torture) the same as pulling one’s fingernails out (torture)?
Taxpayer
For every time Jesus mentioned heaven, He warned about hell three times. Look it up …. and then take it up with Him (or not - your eternal choice).
To Jay, et all
Now back to the bottom line …….. HAVE THE GUTS TO PROSECUTE or move on.
By AmVet
January 15, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this
It all depends on what the definition of is is!
Unethical? Absolutely!
GWB, however was BOTH unethical AND stupid…
Less than 120 hours!!!
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 12:19 PM | Link to this
Corporal,
I see you did not disagree with my statements. Then again, how could you.
By Cammi317
January 15, 2009 12:30 PM | Link to this
I concur with one of the earlier posters that we have a bigger chance of being harmed by one of our home grown terrorist than some foreigner. Also, I have a real problem with a statment put out by Holder today in which he stated that some of the detaines could not be tried but could not be let go because they are too dangerous What does that mean? If they have committed crimes they should be tried, immediately. If not, they should be let go. I cannot fathom how people can be held for years without a trial on a suspicion. If it’s not illegal, it is definitely unethical and immoral.
By AmVet
January 15, 2009 12:31 PM | Link to this
Commie, I’ll grant you both were deadly, bungled clusterf&cks.
The conspiratorial deceit and silencing of rational, alternative voices is why the President and his thugs are culpable, in many peoples minds, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
That so many of the Democrats and ALL of the Republicans (as in virtually every last one of them) bought into the neo-cons longstanding plans to take out Saddam was criminally gutless and almost certainly done in most cases for political expediency. But not criminal.
OBL was merely the most convenient reason the chickenhawks used to invade a sovereign country, though dangerous to be sure, was isolated, controlled and of no real threat to the people of the United States. No more than numerous other rogue states.
Would he have been in time? Who knows. But again not very likely.
To sound like a bumper sticker - Bush lied, kids died.
But in my mind that was but one of several other impeachable offenses…
Like as with this multitude of fat-cat crooks and swindlers on Wall Street and elsewhere, justice will never be served.
By Chad Harris
January 15, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this
Neither Jay Bookman nor the Pentagon offers any scintilla of evidence that “18 of those already released from Guantanamo have been “confirmed” as returning to terrorism, with another 43 having a “plausible” link with terrorist activity.”
This is the same Pentagon that ran the Gitmo prosecutions that the Judge in charge condemned and refuted yesterday, and from whom the top prosecutors resigned.
This is the same Pentagon who claimed Iraq victory, while just yesterday women were denied representation in the Iraq Parliament despite the fact the Iraqi Constitution ratified mandated women have at least 1/3 representation.
The simple fact is that it is unknown who is totally innocent and who is dangerous at Gitmo, because there has been no objective determination done on a case by case basis. Heresay evidence, illegal in state and federal courts has been used, as well as torture in many of the cases.
Andy, whose sole familiarity with medicine is when he uses the restroom,continues to proclaim we have socialized medicine. Those of us who have been immersed in it our entire adult lives know that we don’t have it, and we won’t ever have it.
Someone jumped up and down about Tim Geither’s past tax problems. Geithner who wants to be Sec Treasury, made more than “honest mistakes” as the Obama team intimated. In fact, over several years Geithner exhibited a pattern of non-compliance. He he had failed to pay self-employment tax in those years. To make good, he paid the back taxes, plus interest — $16,732.
failing to pay the self-employment tax is not necessarily common among sophisticated I.M.F employees. Geithner signed forms acknowledging the obligation he intentionally kicked to the curb.
Geithner additionally intentionally misfiled his returns in 2001-2002 and he prepared them himself. The IRS didn’t audit those.
According to an article on them in NYT:
“The I.R.S. did not order him to pay up — which raises the question of why he did not voluntarily amend those returns and pay the taxes and interest at the time of the 2006 audit. Instead, he waited until after vetting by the Obama team late last year revealed the shortfall — $19,176 in taxes and $6,794 in interest.”
The Rethugs who pounce on this however, conveniently ignore that Palin did the precise same thing with her income gained from her $18,000 in per diems, illegally and criminally intentionally not filing them and failing to pay taxes on them. So for all you proper thuglicans that are tax compliance concerned, strange that you only want tax compliance from dems caught doing it.
By Cammi317
January 15, 2009 12:33 PM | Link to this
I concur with one of the earlier posters that we have a bigger chance of being harmed by one of our home grown terrorist than some foreigner. Also, I have a real problem with a statment put out by Holder today in which he stated that some of the detaines could not be tried but could not be let go because they are too dangerous What does that mean? If they have committed crimes they should be tried, immediately. If not, they should be let go. I cannot fathom how people can be held for years without a trial on a suspicion. If it’s not illegal, it is definitely unethical and immoral.
By Bud Wiser
January 15, 2009 12:34 PM | Link to this
AmVet, I never said that supported Bush, or that he was ‘my man’. Your small mind only contorts you into the idiocy you perceive.
The choices of candidates last November were pitiful.
You said: - “Most of us here know that to you empirically and reality challenged, emasculated neoliths, facts are completely irrelevant. I voted against the man, YOUR next CIC, that you loathe so much.”
No lack of reality here, moron. First of all I do not loathe the man, I see him to date as totally unqualified and experienced for the job he is about to undertake, and boy is it a JOB. Your American Idol has done nothing yet except to recycle Clintonians, so I see no originality, or change you can believe in there. If you’re so damn smart, then tell us all the change in that little morsel.
You cannot, because there is none. I, for one, am as happy as anyone to see Bush gone. The wild and uncontrolled spending, the total lack of oversight from him and Congress, dims the sun. It will take our heirs generations to overcome the financial damage alone.
That being said, I am equally thrilled to see him gone so maybe monoliths such as yourself can move forward instead of looking backwards all of the time. The intelligent people who read your blather are tired of it. Bush is gone. Rail against the wind, or the dark, or broccoli for all I care, just get over Bush. Show a shred of intellect, or just simple common decency, if you have any.
What do you think is going to happen in 5 days? Are the trees going to start growing money? Will the sky be clearer, the air purer, the water cleaner in just 5 days? It took God 7 days to create the heavens and the earth, so I guess the idiot crowd sees Obama as more of a Superior Being?
Yes, I stand by what I said about your ignorant idol worship. You and your crowd are going to be in for some very big disappointments, and I will be here to remind you of the lack of vision in your choice.
The really pathetic thing though is that our political parties gave us no better choices than they did. The lunatics have taken over the asylum, and they are about to steal us blind yet again.
Amen.
By Corporal of the Guard
January 15, 2009 12:35 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer
If this is what you mean ….. “Your God would never send anyone to hell”, of course I totally disagree with you.
Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdon of Heaven.
Many are called, but few a chosen.
By Chad Harris
January 15, 2009 12:38 PM | Link to this
Fed Upp—
You’re concerned about criticism of Palin because she turned out to be an idiot and helped to drag a poorly run campaign into the gutter where it died.
If and when I need your direction on when to discuss her, I’ll send you a contract. Until that time, if she says something stupid in an interview or it’s appropriate to make a comparison that’s going to happen.
I was referring to the specific instance the other day when the thugs repeatedly brought her up.
Do you plan to insist she pay the back taxses she evaded?
By Lydiasdad
January 15, 2009 12:41 PM | Link to this
Cammi is the perfect example of a left wing loon who doesn’t undersand the danger but is willing to risk all of our lives for her silly ideology. “If we’re nice to them, they’ll be nice to us.” Yeah, ok.
By CommunistAJC
January 15, 2009 12:42 PM | Link to this
AmVet, I agree with you on some things but I don’t buy in to the current president being a criminal. Bill Clinton even said that Saddam was a huge threat to us. I do believe that Obama’s stance against the war was only of convenience to be the anti-war candidate. I don’t by in to the medias hype that he is more intelligent than any other president. Why? Because he’s yet to make an executive decision. History is the best judge of all when it comes to policy. We’ll have to wait and see.
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 12:46 PM | Link to this
Corporal: You’re pointing to differences of degree, not kind. That’s why the “apples and oranges” argument fails.
We have pretty clear-cut definitions of what constitutes torture. For that matter, we have pretty clear-cut definitions for murder as well. Consider this: If one murderer rapes and mutilates his victim before strangling him/her to death, whereas another just poisons his coffee, should the second criminal get off with a slap on the wrist? After all, he didn’t murder his victim “quite as badly” as the first one did!
No wiggle room here; torture, to ANY degree, is unacceptable and should be prosecuted. The fact that other countries have nuts who take it even further is completely irrelevant.
By Lydiasdad
January 15, 2009 12:48 PM | Link to this
Crawford’s an idiot. The gov’t should do what it has to do, but keep it a secret. And don’t worry that our enemies are waterboarding our soldiers because we’re waterboarding theirs. They’re gong to behead our soldiers, even if we decide to give their terrorists chocolate milk and a nice pillow. And the world doesn’t say a word…
By Lydiasdad
January 15, 2009 12:49 PM | Link to this
Crawford’s an idiot. The gov’t should do what it has to do, but keep it a secret. And don’t worry that our enemies are waterboarding our soldiers because we’re waterboarding theirs. They’re going to behead our soldiers, even if we decide to give their terrorists chocolate milk and a nice pillow. And the world doesn’t say a word…
By Paul
January 15, 2009 12:50 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer 11:55
[[Q - How come we didn’t have a ‘war on rednecks’ following the Timothy McVeigh attack? b. The pres had a brain..]]
You picked “not b” and I pointed out most people consider Clinton pretty smart. You asked what that had to do with your response.
The OKC bombing took place during Clinton’s Presidency.
Communist AJC
Please… if you do start those quotes… you’ll violate scripture…. Hell is supposed to be for the afterlife!
RealityKing 11:53
[[Clinton redefine the word “is” during his grand jury testimony! Stupid is as stupid does..]]
Actually, it was the questioner who tried to redefine ‘is.’ Pres Clinton stayed true to its definition, then, aware the questioner was attempting a new meaning, tried to clarify the intent (from Timothy Noah in ‘Slate’):
“Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton’s presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton’s rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn’t lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, “there’s nothing going on between us.” How can this be? Here’s what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr’s report):
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
The distinction between “is” and “was” was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, “There is no improper relationship.” Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these beltway domes were hyperanalyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who’s willing to think carefully about “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, “Existential Willie.”
Ever see the movie “Paper Chase?” When the old codger law prof is on the stand and driving the prosecutor crazy by answering exactly what was asked?
If anyone should have been critized, it should have been the special prosecutor team for asking such an obviously poor question.
Cammie317
[[we have a bigger chance of being harmed by one of our home grown terrorist than some foreigner.]]
???? Which home grown terrorists are you referring to? And by what measure do you assess they pose a greater likely threat than say, the Ft Dix 6 - Muslim extremists - who were recently convicted of planning an attack on women and kids in a shopping center? Or the guy apprehended with plans to hit the bridge in Brooklyn (another Muslim extremist).
By mm
January 15, 2009 12:52 PM | Link to this
Eric Holder says waterboarding is torture.
Not good news for Bushco.
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 12:56 PM | Link to this
Lydia: I’m not worried about what our enemies learn about us. I’m worried about what we ALLOW OURSELVES TO DO.
Jeez, it used to be claimed that conservatives were the ones with all the hardline principles and courage, but it looks like they’ve just stuck their heads under the covers and whined “make it go away!” these days….
By Lydiasdad
January 15, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this
Crawford’s an idiot. The gov’t should do what it has to do, but keep it a secret. And don’t worry that our enemies are waterboarding our soldiers because we’re waterboarding theirs. They’re going to behead our soldiers, even if we decide to give their terrorists chocolate milk and a nice pillow. And the world doesn’t say a word…
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 1:07 PM | Link to this
Sometimes I think I live in hell already.
Except there’d be no Battlestar Galactica in my hell.
Just got back from a funeral, sorry I’m a little morose.
Commie,
I would like for you to post that scripture if you don’t mind.
Paul,
You can just scroll past - and I would call you a quinduple doo doo head to top you from last night, but someone has to be the grown up. Bwa!!!
And besides after “quin” I don’t know what comes next.
By sd
January 15, 2009 1:07 PM | Link to this
The problem is less that we tortured terrorists and more that we probably tortured innocent people.
There was no process to determine guilt. In the early days of the war, we paid afghanistanis to turn in their neighbors.
There are probably men in Gitmo who did nothing but herd goats. they didn’t hate America then, but I bet they do now.
By Lydiasdad
January 15, 2009 1:08 PM | Link to this
Well, CopyLeft, while you’re worrying about what we allow ourselves to do, terrorists are trying to find the most horrifying, and quick way to cut your head off. But, yeah, let’s keep sitting around and talk about how evil Bush is, and find ways to get the US attorneys assigned to the terrorists in Guantanamo. That way, when they get out, and undermine our national security in the process, they can join the jihad again and have another crack at us. Idiots like you keep us in danger.
By williebkind
January 15, 2009 1:10 PM | Link to this
Jay wrote: “It did shock me,” she said. “I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it.”end quote.
I saw the concentration camps in Germany.
I read about the Japanese treatment of captured American soldiers and visited the museums.
My family told me about Vietnam and Korea, and now I have seen on TV how the extreme muslims have beheaded and tortured American citizens and soldiers. And how they committed honor killings in Atlanta of their own children.
Mrs Crawford said we may have lost our moral authority to COMPLAIN. Complain! It definately sounds like a liberal to me.
So if we can complain that will stop all the torture of our soldiers and citizens?
Can someone please explain to me how moral authority and progessive liberalism connect?
Those who make those kind of statements have no idea what it took to become a nation and what it takes to remain the greatest country that ever existed. It is ok how they kill us but we have rules to kill them—liberal consensus.
Right now the conflict in Gaza everyone especially the UN wants Israel to stop. Remember Israel it is OK for them to bomb and kill your civilians but do not kill theirs. YOU ummoral authority!
We have more compassion than any country I have visisted except France. A person stated that is where men make love with their face. Thats compassion!
By Jake
January 15, 2009 1:11 PM | Link to this
All this war with honor is insane nonsense that somehow got popularized, mostly by the Brits. I am your neighbor. I covet your land, house, wife, and children enough that I’m willing to kill you to get them. Let’s meet in the backyard tonight to settle it. Please follow the rules of engagement and don’t fire untl you’re fired upon. A little later your kids will be shining my boots and your wife will be shining something else while you’re enjoying your heavenly rewards, you bleeding heart MORONS!
By Cammi317
January 15, 2009 1:11 PM | Link to this
Paul, by “home grown terrorist” I was referring to our everyday common criminals. We have more of a chance of being shot and killed in a convenience store robbery, carjacking or home invasion than by a foreign terrorist attack. Terrorist come in all shapes, sizes, colors, natioinalities and religions.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 1:12 PM | Link to this
Bosch 1:07
[[And besides after “quin” I don’t know what comes next. ]]
Sex.
And don’t go there.
I ain’t that liberal. ‘sides which, I’m already spoken for.
33 hours 50 minutes
By gatorboy62
January 15, 2009 1:15 PM | Link to this
Once again Jay is showing his igronance to the true facts. One person comment does not make it true! Bush did what was required to keep the US save. Jay go down thru history, include Obama hero Lincoln. Thank GOD that Bush had the backbone to do the right thing instead of listening to people like you. I doubt Obama will do the same, he will listen, talk big and do NOTHING!
By Paul
January 15, 2009 1:20 PM | Link to this
Cammie317
Thanks for the explanation. I’m not a fan of redefining nouns (terrorist) in such a manner.
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 1:21 PM | Link to this
Paul,
Would it be sexduple? Just think what some of the bloggers here would do if one of us left out the “duple” and called one of the other “sex doo-doo head?” We might not be such boring bloggers after that.
I’m spoken for too. Speaking of, how’s your wife doing? And your son?
BSG? I am literally so excited I can’t stand it. Really, I just can’t stand it.
By AmVet
January 15, 2009 1:23 PM | Link to this
Bud, didn’t read your last post beyond the first couple of sentences.
Sorry, can’t waste a lot of time on someone who is so childish and insecure their entire modus operandi is attacks and personal insults.
Waste some one else’s time flamer…
By CommunistAJC
January 15, 2009 1:29 PM | Link to this
Bosch, Here you go.
John 14:6
6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Luke 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
The day will surely come when God, by Jesus Christ, will judge everyone’s secret life. This is my message. - Romans 2:5-16
This verse isn’t about hell but it is very interesting.
For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. - Romans 1:18-21
When we confess Jesus as Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, we are saved by the words of our mouth. That’s Romans 10:9.
By lee
January 15, 2009 1:29 PM | Link to this
You’re right. We should let the killers out to kill us. Bad President Bush!! How dare he protect us!
By war eagle
January 15, 2009 1:29 PM | Link to this
torturing Islamic extremists is only fair-considering what they’ve done to our soldiers, people and other innocent civilians. Saddam did it to his own people. If it keeps us safe and prevents Americans from getting killed-I am for it!
By Paul
January 15, 2009 1:31 PM | Link to this
Bosch
You’re wondering what some here would do with that? I don’t even want to begin to imagine…
Thanks for asking. She’s well, on a one-year schedule for followups at MD Anderson. That’s a great facility - can’t say enough good. Son is healing, he’s finally putting himself first with the recovery. Doc said they never restitch or staple, but it’s getting there and his attitude is still tremendous. Next operation’s in April.
I tend to lose track of what day it is. Thought today was Friday. Was really bummed when I figured it out.
Funerals, even when done in a joyful manner, are still somber. Best to you -
32 hours 31 minutes
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 1:34 PM | Link to this
Paul,
Remember this song?
All Along the Watchtower
Awesome.
By BS Aplenty
January 15, 2009 1:35 PM | Link to this
The training accorded U.S. Navy SEAL candidates is particularly demanding. It consists of 42 weeks of combat training and is considered advanced even among normally hardened Marines. During Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, the recruits undergo 132 continuous hours of arduous physical training. Training that puts them in the cold surf of the Pacific where they are required to peform assigned physical and leadership tasks - flawlessly. The recruits call this first week of BUD/S training, ‘Hell Week’. The Drop On Request or dropout rate among candidates during this training typically runs around 70-80%. It’s the kind of grueling, physical and mental training necessary for the U.S. Navy to prepare their troops for battle.
Maybe that’s why the U.S. military and the Bush Administration don’t consider water-boarding, or exposure to cold or hanging panties on detainees’ heads to be torture.
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 1:43 PM | Link to this
Paul,
Glad your wife and son are doing well. I have a frend whose husband was at MD Anderson - she said the same thing. Great place.
I just had another Battlestar Galactica thought - we see alot of paranoia here on this blog - think for just a minute how some on this blog would be if they lived in a world like Battlestar with the Cylons. They’d simply implode.
But that’s one of the reasons I LOVE THAT SHOW! Very symbolic of today - AND there’s even God and all that stuff.
Have I told you that before - that I love that show?
By Fred
January 15, 2009 1:46 PM | Link to this
A line that can not be crossed-IN WAR???
MY GOD-What world is that woman living in?
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 1:48 PM | Link to this
Commie,
Thanks. I’m pondering.
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 1:53 PM | Link to this
Paul,
You do not get the luxury of making up questions to go with my answers.
Corporal,
You know full well what I meant. I did include a reference to Jesus, silly boy.
By Tired of Media Liberal Hacks
January 15, 2009 1:54 PM | Link to this
Bookman - you are an idiot. I read where the Gitmo prisoners that have been released have entered the war again trying to kill US troops. I guess the prisoners are more important to you than US lives. I hope you and your family are in the next building targeted by terrorists. You deserve it.
The only real lesson for the US from Gitmo is to no longer take prisoners.
By CommunistAJC
January 15, 2009 1:57 PM | Link to this
Bosch, please don’t take those versus as me trying to force something on you. Also, please don’t label me as some nut case who goes around pointing fingers at everybody because I’m not. The problem stems from people not reading the Bible enough to know what the context means. Verses have been taken out of context plenty of times and I don’t want to come across as someone who does that.
By AmVet
January 15, 2009 1:59 PM | Link to this
Commie, some of my “Bush as a criminal” stuff is hyperbole I suppose.
I’m just outraged at some of what he has done, how he has manhandled the most sacred document ever written, the US Constitution and how he will now skate away clean as a whistle. Teflon presidencies really suck.
I am not sure about Obama, but I do agree that MANY of the Dems who voted to give you know who power to do you know what and then later had some sort of epiphany are frauds. And I said I very early on that I would not vote for anyone who did that. And I didn’t.
Perhaps a tiny few - Hagel comes to mind, really did rue that decision, for the right reasons. And it really is impossible to know what is in anyone’s heart or mind, but the others? Not so much.
Agreed about time will tell if Obama makes good decisions or not. Totally unproven in my mind. He has a lot going in his favor right now and has a golden chance to perform at a very high level. Lets see if he is just another political disappointment.
However, the one thing he has not completely botched yet, it would seem, is the people he has chosen to be his close advisers. (IMHO it was a real shame Richardson stepped down - a man of integrity and experience.) Given BHO’s track record, and especially that of GWB’s, I was very concerned about this.
As for this whole torture thing, I agree that some of it seems fairly innocuous. But the thing that concerned a lot of Americans right from shock and awe was how obvious it was that the blood lusting chickenhawks were exceptionally eager to become Al Queda-lite themselves.
They share sister mythologies and both are not exactly known for their tolerance and progressiveness or adherence to international laws they don’t like. The fact is that the neo-cons, in many people’s minds, share some eerie similarities to them.
Even the hint of thuggery by the CIA, as mandated by Cheney, flies in the face of Americans, as above what the barbarians do routinely.
We can never sanction those American zealots who advocate we do.
By sd
January 15, 2009 2:01 PM | Link to this
Everyone keeps assuming that EVERYONE in Gitmo is guilty and therefore should be tortured.
Some are guilty, some were just in the wrong place.
We may never know who is who now. And those that were harmless are probably not now.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 2:05 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer
Did I get something out of sequence? Or did I read something incorrectly? I thought your answer to why we didn’t go after redneck terrorists after OKC bombing was NOT b (“b” was because the President had a brain). I pointed out most people, even detractors, thought Clinton was a pretty smart guy.
Bosch
That music reverberates somewhere within the foggy recesses of my brain.
Funny thought, that. To go from “are you really a closet lib or con” to “are you a Cylon?” Paranoia supreme.
Have I ever mentioned I really, really, really like Battlestar?
31 hours 57 minutes
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 2:06 PM | Link to this
Lydiasdad: Okay, we get it. You’re scared. You want the bad men stopped, “by any means necessary,” and you don’t care what laws or freedoms have to be sacrificed as long as you feel safe.
(More specifically, you’d rather not KNOW what parts of the Constitution have been suspended or bypassed to keep you safe.)
That’s fine, and you have a lot of cowardly company over there, shivering under a right-wing blanket every time BushCo waves the “ooga-booga-terrorism” banner.
I, however, am an American. I stand by my country’s principles and freedoms. And I don’t accept that we have to give them up to defend ourselves from our enemies. If we do, why bother fighting at all?
By CommunistAJC
January 15, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this
AmVet, I understand your anger. I am angry at the situation America has been in for years and years. I was raised to never live outside my means of living. I work hard and try to pay off all my debt. That’s the first goal. I have many friends who spend like there is no tomorrow without understanding the consequences of their choices. I do also understand that there are a lot of people who have lost their jobs that didn’t live outside their means. Two years ago I remember how the housing market was booming and people were getting approved to buy houses twice as much as they could afford. That blame goes squarely to them. America keeps borrowing and borrowing. If China wanted to end our country now all they would have to do is pull out of investing in America and ask to be paid for the debt that they own. We have irresponsible politicians on both sides and sadly there are only a handful that I’d consider trusting with my vote.
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 2:10 PM | Link to this
Commie,
No, I don’t take it that way. I really did want to know where it talked about hell in the Bible. Seriously. And I really am pondering that. I’m impressed that you knew where to find it.
Anyway, what’s weird is that I was having a conversation with someone about hell last night, and it was on my mind. I actually just printed out those verses so I can look at them further.
Thanks.
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 2:12 PM | Link to this
And Commie,
“The problem stems from people not reading the Bible enough to know what the context means. Verses have been taken out of context plenty of times”
I couldn’t agree more. The only thing I would add is that context is different for different folks.
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 2:17 PM | Link to this
Paul,
I just said that there were only two likely scenarios, a. or c. It cannot be b. because that decision would not have been made based on whether or not he had a brain. There’s absolutely no evidence to support such a fantastic claim. Where are the MRIs, the incisions, etc. I’m just trying to be technically correct. You know, like you and George and Dick and others. It’s sort of analogous to that “letter of the law” thing. It just would not do to mis-underestimate or mis-interpolate or worse.
By CommunistAJC
January 15, 2009 2:22 PM | Link to this
Bosch, it’s important to know what the verses really mean. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard someone say “don’t judge lest you be judged” without even knowing what was going on at the time. Glad I could help you with the verses. I’m very fascinated with the book of Daniel and how it leads up to Revelations. Very complicated stuff. Hell is one of those topics people seem to ignore because no one wants to think about where they go when they die. A lot of people seem to think that the Devil is somehow sitting in Hell with his hands wrapped around a pitchfork pondering how to get back at God. Nothing could be further from the truth. No where in the Bible does it say that the devil is or has ever been to Hell. The Bible says that the Devil roams the Earth to and fro. Interesting stuff. The good thing is the the Devil can not be in two places at once. You can learn a lot by reading the Bible. It’s a big book but what’s great is that everything somehow connects. From lineage to prophecy.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 2:26 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer
Got it. I think. Feel a bit thick on that one. When I read the statement I took the ‘no war on rednecks following the McVeigh bombing’ to mean “during the term of the president at the time of the bombing who was Clinton.” I just kinda thought Rhodes scholar, law school, reputation among his staff as a policy wonk who’d drive them nuts debating eight sides of an issue without telling them his position kinda qualified him as a smart guy.
But if some see it differently, that’s okay, too
By gandi
January 15, 2009 2:27 PM | Link to this
Uh, dummies, there is no question at all of whether we did or did not torture. When over 100 (check the !@#$ facts) detainees have died in our custody any debate is the farting of fat dogs. There is a natural law of consequences (some call it karma) that will have to be taken into account for our brutal bloodletting after 9-11. Let’s see, 3000 dead after 9-11 vs. hundreds of thousands dead as a result of our reaction to 9-11. Keep puffing your chests out orks.
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 2:30 PM | Link to this
“I saw the concentration camps in Germany.
I read about the Japanese treatment of captured American soldiers and visited the museums….
Can someone please explain to me how moral authority and progessive liberalism connect?”
I’ll be glad to explain it to you, WillieB.
LIBERALS saw those atrocities and vowed that America would never sink to that level, and that such appalliing acts would forever be fought and opposed by free people everywhere.
NEOCONS saw those atrocities and said, “Hey, I’ll be we could do it even better.”
IDIOTS see similar atrocities being committed in their name and remark, “Hey—it’s okay when we do it.”
By Incredulous
January 15, 2009 2:33 PM | Link to this
It would be dreaming to think that the Commie Lib Left would be as upset at terrorists are they are at the presence of Gitmo.
Their mantra: “They terrorists are my friends because they, too, hate President Bush.”
Remember Bush’s unblemished record against a repeat attack. It will stand out as remarkable compared to Obama. At least that’s what VP Biden said.
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
January 15, 2009 2:34 PM | Link to this
There is a great and, in this matter, highly instructive story about an old woman who mailed a letter to G-d. Seems her family was to have Christmas dinner at her home, but she had been recently conned of all her money so she could not buy the food necessary to host the dinner. Her letter to G-d asked for Him to send her $100 to buy the food so her family could enjoy the planned Christmas dinner. A post office employee opened the letter and was so moved by the woman’s plight that she passed the plate among her coworkers and raised $95 that they sent to the old lady. After Christmas a thank you note to G-d showed up in the mail. The postal workers eagerly opened the letter to see how Christmas dinner went. What they found was a note thanked G-d for sending the $95 and concluded that “the b******* at the post office must have stolen the other $5.”
And so it is with the liberal sheeple, who not only express no grattitude to President Bush, but also wrongly condemn the very actions that kept us safe. Sadly they are so blindly by BDS that they cannot conceptualize that they or a family member may be one of those who would not be alive today but for the decisive action of President Bush.
G-d bless President Bush. He has set a remarkable standard of care and success, let’s further pray that PEOTUS can live up to it.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 2:35 PM | Link to this
gandi
A couple thousand dead after Pearl Harbor vs the millions we killed after. Got it.
Note: I was not defending the position Iraq was a proper response to 9-11. Just following your logic pattern.
And the debate about ‘torture’ is about what constitutes it (very few people get specific on this), is it ever justified for those not protected by the Constitution or treaty, are there harsh measures that do not constitute torture, and, last but not limited to, is it morally responsible to allow thousands to endure a horrible death so one person responsible for those deaths does not have to endure a few seconds or minutes of nonlethal, nondisfiguring, nondebilitating discomfort?
By Jackson
January 15, 2009 2:38 PM | Link to this
gandi
You’ve made some interesting assertions. Would you break down that “…over 100…have died in our (U.S.) custody…” to indicate how those 100+ souls departed earth. Did they die of natural causes, water-boarding, knife fight inside the detention center, cancer, pneumonia? And, also, if you’d identify the detention center where they met their unnatural demise.
Thanking you in advance, Jackson.
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this
“is it ever justified for those not protected by the Constitution or treaty”
Paul: Interesting question—are there any such people? I know the Bush administration tried to invent a category called “unlawful combatants” to get around treaties and Constitutional requirements, but I believe U.S. law covers ALL people, citizens and noncitizens alike, military or civilian or otherwise.
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this
Paul,
You are getting way too deep into it relative to my having fun with the notion that TW laid out originally. I just could not help going for the obvious ploys of a. follow the money because there is always a money trail to everything or c. it has to be the rednecks and we all know that they congregate within the GOP. Looking for evidence of brains somehow being involved just didn’t even come into play. Of course, that’s not to say that Clinton is not a very smart person and that one could follow that line of thought and run with it as a response to TW. I just was not leaning towards the definition of “is” discussion.
By gandi
January 15, 2009 2:47 PM | Link to this
Paul Nonlethal? You are really not paying attention. And we lost a lot more lives in WWII than :a couple of thousand”. Get it?
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
January 15, 2009 2:54 PM | Link to this
Copyleft 2:40 PM
WARNINGBDS ALERTWARNINGBDS ALERTWARNINGBDS ALERT*WARNING
Copyleft, so you, “…I know the Bush administration tried to invent a category called “unlawful combatants” to get around treaties and Constitutional requirements…” Do you?
That is categorically incorrect the unlawful combatant characterization was established under International Humanitarian Law. President Bush had nothing to do with the establishment of the classification or guidelines for treatment of the same.
Do you care to admit that you were wrong? Or is this one more falsehood that has become doctrine for the liberal sheeple. Perhaps we can reconcile your knowledge with the actual truth by claiming that President Bush created International Humanitarian Law. As Gov Palin might say, “waddaya think?”
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 2:59 PM | Link to this
Back on topic
[[[…is it morally responsible to allow thousands to endure a horrible death so one person responsible for those deaths does not have to endure a few seconds or minutes of nonlethal, nondisfiguring, nondebilitating discomfort?]]]
Is that what we are really talking about. Is that the worse that happened. The information out there on the Internet would say otherwise. So, is it morally responsible to take someone who has no known ties to terrorists and subject that person to drowning followed by resuscitation and beatings and detention for years without anyone’s knowledge that they are even being held, etc.
By gandi
January 15, 2009 3:00 PM | Link to this
jackson: don’t have all the details in front of me but most of the ones I’ve read about died from beatings and the resulting bloodclots. haven’t got time to link you right now but you could probably do a little researching online to at least confirm the veracity of my assertion that over 100 have died in our custody, due to our action, not fighting among themselves. It’s not a pretty picture.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 3:03 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer,
As I said, I felt a bit thick overdoing it. Thanks for staying with me on that. Battlestar Galactica kinda saps the attention….
Copyleft
My understanding is the Constitution covers US citizens and those apprehended within our borders. One reason, I believe, for locating the prisoners at the Naval facility at Cuba. Bit of a getaround, even though it is a US base, but foreign soil, different in status from an embassy.
I suppose one could say they ‘invented’ the category, but really, they didn’t fall into any existing category. Noncombatants don’t fight. Combatants before were those in uniform sponsored by a country. Geneva covers them. If their country is a signatory. And if they are covered, but they don’t follow the rules (carry out attacks in civilian clothes, show a white flag then attack), well, more than one summary execution with no war crimes prosecution happened.
So we had these people, nonstate, ideologically driven, not part of a ‘regular’ armed force, who have as a basic strategy targeting noncombatants (which is itself a violation of the laws of war) who aren’t US citizens and in foreign locations - well, they had to come up with a way to describe them.
And once they did come up with terms, not properly calling people by the right term is what got the gov’t reversed in some of those court decisions.
I kinda think some governments and their citizens might not be too happy if we tried to adhere to US law and constitutional rights wherever we go. “Uh, excuse me, miss, just tell that imam to go screw himself. You’re a woman and don’t have to do what he says.” Or telling an Indian contractor “uh, fire everybody at your plant. Shut it down. You don’t meet our standards for water purity.” Or “hey there, Myanmar protester, you just stand right up in the town square and denounce the government. It’s your right!”
But if you mean all law only in relation to those we’re fighting, well, the next question is, all law, really? Soldier sees a plume of smoke in a window. Outside there’s an explosion. Soldiers go in and capture the person. He gets released because the soldiers didn’t have a search warrant. Is that what you mean? Extreme? No. Soldiers in Iraq in this phase are oftentime subject to Iraqi court warrant requirements. So when a person says “all” or “covered by the Constitution” that does mean with no exception.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 3:07 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer 2:59
I said nothing about what has happened. I asked, is this a standard we want to have, even though there is this foreseeable consequence?
The answer to your question for me is, of course not. Now, care to reengage on the clarified question?
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 3:12 PM | Link to this
Paul,
Yeah, I think you’ve mentioned that a time or two.
Not only “Are you a Cylon” but you could go from knowing someone your whole life (Tigh) to whammo, them being a Cylon, or be married to someone (Anders and Chief) and then dammit - their not even human AND they’ve been turned on by some freaky Jimi Hendrix song and they could kill you at any moment - OR - lure you into some freaky air chamber and SUCK YOUR DUMB A$$ OUT INTO SPACE!!!
Man, that would make me paranoid! Much more than, am I gonna get blown up by a terrorist today.
But, back to torture. There’s a part of me that doesn’t mind torture with some folks like the fat guy who really needs some kind of award for “World’s Worst Mug Shot” - there are just some things I’d rather NOT KNOW about. Ya’ see?
But with Guantanamo, I feel like the detainees there must be kind of sweating it - I would be. Think about it - going from Guantanamo to OUR prison system? At Guantanamo they are relatively safe from each other - in our prison system? Um, hello new b!tches.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commie,
Interesting. When I posted earlier that sometimes I think I already live in hell, I wan’t kidding, and that thought isn’t too far from what you just wrote. OMG! Maybe we have more in common than we think!
By Jackson
January 15, 2009 3:15 PM | Link to this
gandi, thanks I will look into the deaths occuring inside U.S. detention centers. I guess you could say I’m ambivalent about whether a terrorist dies outside a detention center or inside. Of course, their designation as non-combatants, or terrorists, makes me feel this way.
By Mike D
January 15, 2009 3:17 PM | Link to this
I say give me a blow torch, a drill, and a pair of pliers and I can get all those terrorist idiots to talk. I know all you blue state voters want to consider how they feel while living at Gitmo, and the answer is they feel like killing us all. The thing I don’t understand is why all of these terrorist were not killed on the battlefield and let that be the end of them.
By Mike D
January 15, 2009 3:17 PM | Link to this
I say give me a blow torch, a drill, and a pair of pliers and I can get all those terrorist idiots to talk. I know all you blue state voters want to consider how they feel while living at Gitmo, and the answer is they feel like killing us all. The thing I don’t understand is why all of these terrorist were not killed on the battlefield and let that be the end of them.
By Pete
January 15, 2009 3:18 PM | Link to this
GITMO everybody’s shame ??? Are you kidding me ??? They should be TWICE as harsh on those barbaric cannibals. Give us all a break. The naivette of the press and all the so called “elitists” is laughable. Have any of you ever been more than 100 miles from home, without your mommies…………to see what the real world is all about ???
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 3:20 PM | Link to this
Paul,
I thought Jay had clarified the question. We all want the truth, Yes. Do you know what the Bush administration has approved/condoned and/or what has transpired regarding treatment of persons in the custody of the US or persons working on behalf of or at the bequest of persons within the US. I know it can be difficult to get the wording just right such that another cannot avoid providing the information that they know another would like them to provide. You know what I mean. I mean, I’ve been through this even at the county level in requesting information. If you don’t phrase that question just right, you may not get the information that you know is right there under their nose.
By Cadman
January 15, 2009 3:23 PM | Link to this
Go ahead and paint the terrorist out to be the victims Jay. Where were all you whiners for human rights when those terrorists were chopping the heads off our soldiers and dragging and stomping their bodies in the streets? Perceptions like yours are exactly what is wrong with this country!
By Cadman
January 15, 2009 3:23 PM | Link to this
Go ahead and paint the terrorist out to be the victims Jay. Where were all you whiners for human rights when those terrorists were chopping the heads off our soldiers and dragging and stomping their bodies in the streets? Perceptions like yours are exactly what is wrong with this country!
By kdffb
January 15, 2009 3:29 PM | Link to this
HOLDER SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR HIS ROLE IN THE PARDONS UNDER CLINTON
By Paul
January 15, 2009 3:29 PM | Link to this
Bosch 3:12
[[Think about it - going from Guantanamo to OUR prison system? At Guantanamo they are relatively safe from each other - in our prison system? Um, hello new b!tches.]]
Man, did I laugh at that one!
I rather think both sides stake out some pretty extreme, exclusionary positions. Most on the “no torture ever” side seem to portray torture as a routine occurrence. Get captured, bam, here come the electric shocks. Many on the “it may be appropriate” side never really delineate what those circumstances might be. Then, Wham! Bam! they go at it.
Which is why I’ve tried to lay out what I see as regrettably justified in some limited circumstances (even though some here’s only response is “oh, okay, we know you really like torture,) I just have trouble getting my mind around the position that says “there are people out there who’ve declared war on us - they don’t target just the military. They go after noncombatants - women and kids and old people - in schools and hospitals. If you’re military and captured, count on excruciating torture, then death (have we had any servicemen captured by AQ not tortured and killed, or killed and disfigured?). So if we capture one involved in an impending attack upon innocents, and they’re not US citizens, well, we’ll just ask’em if they’d like to talk to us and do everything we can to make sure they’re not uncomfortable, even if another Breslin (Moslem terrorists whose attack on a school resulted in hundreds of deaths) is in play.
Setting up laws that are absolutes, no exceptions, even for the most unlikely possibility, does not strike me as responsible.
Like Jay (and Jack Bauer) said, better to get it out in the open.
I’m gonna have to go back and check - how long from the first Cylon war to the second was it? ‘Cause if Tigh is a Cylon, that means he had to have been inserted as an infant. Or really young. Or (season 2?) can they harvest the mind as they were doing other experiments on living prisoners and implant the memories and consciousness?
30 hours 34 minutes
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 3:31 PM | Link to this
Wild Bill: Caught you!
The International Humanitarian Law you cite specifies that such detainees must then be prosecuted according to the domestic law of the detaining country.
The Guantanamo detainees, of course, have not been so handled.
Further, the detaining state must also follow Article 3 in the handling of such prisoners, according to that same law. This has also not occurred, thanks to Bush’s declaration (note: NOT a law, simply an executive order) that the Guantanamo prisoners not receive due process as guaranteed by treaty and the Constitution.
The site of Guantanamo was chosen specifically to put Bush’s war crimes beyond the reach of the courts. A trivial matter like torture hardly matters to sociopaths of that scale.
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 3:32 PM | Link to this
Cadman,
Where were we? At home, where our soldiers should have been to begin with, or in Afghanistan.
By sd
January 15, 2009 3:37 PM | Link to this
terrorist this and terrorist that.
SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN GITMO DID NOTHING WRONG!!!
Some of them were turned in by their neighbors for money for no good reason. Look it up.
How many innocent people is it OK to torture if you get to torture 10 terrorists?
One? Two?
So, if we can get some info by torturing 10 people and one of them is innocent, is it worth it?
What if the one innocent one was your son? Still worth it?
Still want the blow torch and pliers?
By Paul
January 15, 2009 3:37 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer 3:20
Welcome to the wonderful world of people who work for us but who think otherwise. Even when you’re precise you get hosed. Local paper had an article about how the police dept was going to lease some motorcycles and it wasn’t going to cost us anything!! Yea!!! Yeah, right. I wrote and asked for a copy of the cost analyis - lease vs buy. What I got was a one-page contract summary. Couple years later the paper had another article about how the police were getting rid of most of the motorcycles. Cost too much.
Sigh…..
But do I know the trail you referenced? No. Pretty good idea and I think it’s a lot more slipshod, disjointed, left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing than a lot of people would think. And I think it entirely possible to investigate what happened, how it happened, then put in controls to the same doesn’t happen again (if it’s a bad thing) and how to make that which is appropriate, better. And to decide, in the clear light of day, what we are going to do and how we are going to do it. With specifics.
But not as some are calling for, essentially a ‘gotcha’ fishing expedition.
That’s what Special Prosecutors do.
By Copyleft
January 15, 2009 3:37 PM | Link to this
Paul: What a lot of folks seem to be missing is that the detainees at Guantanamo are NOT TERRORISTS.
Go back and read that again. They’re SUSPECTS, not terrorists. There has been NOTHING proven against them. They were simply captured and imprisoned—and many hundreds of them have been released since then!
Why? Because they didn’t do anything, that’s why. Everyone posturing and bragging about how “tough” they’d like to get with “those terrorist scum at Gitmo” seem to think that everyone there is actually guilty of terrorism.
Of course, if their involvement with terrorist activity could actually be PROVEN, we wouldn’t have this problem, now would we? But no—instead the administration tries to hide from the law, afraid to go ahead with due process and trials. Gee, I wonder why…?
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 3:39 PM | Link to this
Wow, Paul, Wow!
Check this out!
Battlestar Timeline)
By Cadman
January 15, 2009 3:42 PM | Link to this
Obviously Bosch you’re part of that kool-aide drinking group mentality. You support the troops just not the cause they’re fighting and dying for huh? Nice to see your more worried about a terrorists rights than your own country’s soldiers.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 3:46 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
I’ve cited several times about the people detained because they were fingered by someone who received a bounty. And been critical of the Administration for sitting on their hands or taking way too long to come up with procedures for dealing with the detainees. Or even, (all italics here) following their own frakin’ rules once they’ve established them!
Other wars were easy. You’re in a uniform, you’re captured, hey, you’re a POW! This one, not as easy, especially when we began apprehending some in the manner we did. But for others - we took fire from a house, we entered, this guy was there with an AK47, well that’s pretty clear. But to use US criminal law procedures and US Constitutional rights to “prove” the case is, I think, a bit of a stretch.
Bosch
thanks! I’m gonna be out for a while checking that. Or else doing my distracted multipanel switch…
32 hours 15 minutes
By CommunistAJC
January 15, 2009 3:49 PM | Link to this
Bosche, I didn’t mean that we are living in hell right now. Hell is gonna be hot hot hot.
By Corporal of the Guard
January 15, 2009 3:50 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
Sorry, but just as in taking someone’s life (from justifiable homicide, to war to involuntary manslaughter to murder) there are always dgrees and lot’s of Wiggle Room when it comes to terrorist interrogations.
If you are so sure of your position, push for prosecution and we’ll see ………….
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 3:50 PM | Link to this
Cadman,
Nope. I don’t like Kool-Aid. Too much sugar and the mascot is really stupid looking. Never much cared for the stuff.
And it’s nice to know that you can read my mind and tell me what I believe, because usually I reserve what I believe for me and no one else.
Can you tell me the cause our soldiers are fighting for in Iraq? Which cause are we onto now?
By sd
January 15, 2009 3:52 PM | Link to this
“You support the troops just not the cause they’re fighting and dying for huh? Nice to see your more worried about a terrorists rights than your own country’s soldiers.”
Which cause? Specifically in regards to Iraq?
The imminent threat caused by their weapons of mass destruction?
The regime change?
The “spreading democracy”?
Freedom on the march?
I forgot what we were fighting Iraqis for. Did 19 Iraqis fly into the WTC? I can’t remember.
Seems like it was Saudis.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 3:54 PM | Link to this
Bosch
Cadman has it! You can tell if someone’s a Cylon by whether or not they can drink Kool-Aid! Or certain flavors. Wait… how do we tell which flavors they can or can’t drink?
Cadman
I think “supporting the troops but not necessarily the cause” came out of Vietnam - after many who disagreed with American policy there took it out on the troops. Those who witnessed that or were subject to it vowed it wouldn’t happen again.
Which is why plenty of folks can give all kinds of support to the troops but disagree with the action they’re engaged in.
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 3:54 PM | Link to this
Commie,
Have you ever been to New Orleans in the summer?
:-)
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 3:55 PM | Link to this
Paul,
And, Jay is proposing that we somehow get those involved to admit their “actions” in exchange for not looking for evidence of a crime, I guess.
By Cadman
January 15, 2009 3:57 PM | Link to this
Typical….
By CommunistAJC
January 15, 2009 3:58 PM | Link to this
Bosche, I lived in Memphis and Tampa for a few years. Trust me, I know what you mean about New Orleans.
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
January 15, 2009 3:58 PM | Link to this
Copyleft 3:31 PM
Got me!!!!!!!!!! Hardly, I made no comment on applicable law concerning treatment of detainess under IHL. My only comment (applicable to you) was to catch your BDS addled misrepresentation that President Bush invented a category called unlawful comabatants. Your claim that you “got me” is preposterous, it makes no sense, and it just doesn’t fit.
Now to focus on the matter at hand, will you man up to admit that: a) President Bush did not invent enemy comabtants; and b) that you “got me” not. Or, as is the way with of the liberal sheeple, will you just create a third untruth and prattle on about President Bush’s so called evils.
By blady
January 15, 2009 3:59 PM | Link to this
Jay, we already know the truth: The Bush Administration engaged in torture, then repeatedly lied to the American people about it.
If we don’t investigate ther oles they played and punishing them for their unlawful actions, there is no accountable (for them or the American people) and it will happen again.
By blady
January 15, 2009 4:00 PM | Link to this
Jay, we already know the truth: The Bush Administration engaged in torture, then repeatedly lied to the American people about it.
If we don’t investigate ther oles they played and punishing them for their unlawful actions, there is no accountable (for them or the American people) and it will happen again.
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 4:01 PM | Link to this
Paul,
By jove, you’re brilliant! Brilliant! It’s always been about the Kool-Aid isn’t it? I knew something was up with that freaky Kool-Aid guy. I never trusted that freak for a minute! He’s not a guy at all, but rather a Cylon disguised as a - a - a - um, nevermind.
By Paul
January 15, 2009 4:13 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer 3:55
I see it more as discovery of process rather than confessional time. Kinda strikes me along the same lines as Pres Carter’s pardoning of draft dodgers. Ford had earlier issued conditional amnesty but the scars were still bright and deep. Carter wanted to heal the country and move on.
And as far as an admission, higher-ups have already said they approved waterboarding, they didn’t consider it torture, their lawyers gave them cover, that’s how they saw the law at the time. So you’d have all kinds of legal back and forth and a real ‘can one be convicted of a crime when top gov’t legal counsel said their was no crime and even the opposition party’s top officials did not register any complaints at the time? That gets awfully close to the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto - punishing a person for conduct committed before a criminal law was enacted.
Bosch
ohmygosh…. that takes us to the Pillsbury Doughboy…. and what about those Keebler elves?
29 hours 48 minutes
By Bosch
January 15, 2009 4:17 PM | Link to this
Paul,
You and I are both bouncing around on both threads -did that link work for you? I put the URL up on the other thread.
That Doughboy is freaky too. He’s always so giggly - just like a stupid little girl.
And those elves. What do they really do in that tree? Cookies? I dont’ think so.
AND, there’s the bear on the fabric softener commercials. He’s always rolling around in people’s clothes that have just been folded - is he actually spraying them with some kind of Cylon poison and the unsuspecting won’t know it because the smell is covered up with his evil fabric softener scent? THAT’S why I don’t use fabric softener.
By Taxpayer
January 15, 2009 4:50 PM | Link to this
Paul,
I agree that this administration admitted to doing what they declared to be legal. They also punished soldiers for going beyond what was deemed legal. I’m in that camp that is having difficulty accepting that these incidents are mutually exclusive — amongst other things. Bottom line — I just don’t see myself ever accepting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others in this administration as people that I respect, admire, or otherwise look up to. I hope that Obama restores my faith in at least some in government. It’s been a long eight years under Bush and I’m glad it’s almost over.
By Bud Wiser
January 15, 2009 4:53 PM | Link to this
What’s the matter AmVet? Too many words with too many letters for you?
So besides being ignorant, you now admit to being functionsally illiterate?
Why am I not surprised?
Tool.
By Jake
January 15, 2009 4:57 PM | Link to this
sd - One good result of the occupation of Iraq is that whether or not they were there to begin with it drew lots of terrorists with the chance to kill Americans and get to Muslim heaven. Consequently we have killed and detained lots of terrorists. It’s immaterial whether or not Iraq was directly linked to 9/11. Islamo facists are committed to convert or kill every last infidel on the planet and have the added motivation of getting to heaven just for trying and failing! Some people on this planet are trying to protect you and others like you by addressing this threat before there is another 9/11 or before Iran can nuke Israel off the map. I’m sure you would prefer to wait until they actually nuke Israel, well as long as you’re not living there, but some of us would rather try to prevent than wait and react. Besides we already were attacked and 100% of the victims (well excluding what you undoubtedly consider war criminals working at the Pentagon) were totally innocent victims. What part of that don’t you and copyleft and communistajc understand?
By williebkind
January 15, 2009 5:03 PM | Link to this
This blog is not about torture but simply a vent for the liberals who hate. They hate conservatives and especially traditional values. They hate President Bush more than they love their family. Life is tough outside the Atlanta area and most people do not take time to analyze what motivates terrorists. They simply understand they kill our people for their ideology and the terrorist deserve no quarter. Most Americans believe the constitution was ment for them not the rest of the world.
By Dusty
January 15, 2009 5:27 PM | Link to this
Torture? You mean what libs say about our country, our president, and our military at war on this blog?? Yes, indeed, that is torture and should be prosecuted. It is demented, truthless, witless, scary and has the effect of the Chinese water torture.
When Ms. Godzie was IN THE NEWS, she dripped on us every half hour with chewed on cut’n’paste jobs that were pure trash in the face. Waterless torture!!
Bookman runs his blog all night and that is like lights-on torture. AmVet throws red hot hate right in every face. Harris suffocates us with superfluous wordiness. Bosch feeds us baloney. Libs are torturers!!
This cold weather is TORTURE.
If you want to call EVERY uncomfortable act as torture, let us go for it. Two known prisoners waterboarded so you want to indict the USA? Spineless Dems who wouldn’t dare pick up a water pistol are calling the referee to indict the protective players. Figures!!
Go talk to ben Laden if you want to discuss torture. His crowd is doing it. He will show you what torture REALLY is.
By Corporal of the Guard
January 15, 2009 5:28 PM | Link to this
to williebkind
WELL SAID ………
Liberalism = appeasement.
It’s just that simple.
By Pogo
January 15, 2009 5:41 PM | Link to this
The whole debate about our governments intelligence agencies employing “extreme” cohersive techniques (or, “torture” for our liberal friends) with captured terrorists is based upon the belief by them that if the USA abstains from these techniques, that in some way it will prevent our enemies from doing it (t** for tat, so to speak). Do any of you liberals really believe that if the USA maintains the “moral high ground” with people like this that it will make one bit of difference with them? Do you believe it will prevent them from beheading journalists or anyone else they can get their hands on from the “Zionist” states? This one point, which the liberals have gloamed onto to bash Bush, is a fraud. What would any of you want done if a member of your family was killed or maimed by one of these monsters and that it could have possibly been avoided if we had just known? This world we live in is not for idealogic idiots. It is a world for the realists in which terrorists such as Hamas will hide behind defenseless women and children to carry on their war and that really don’t care if they are blown to pieces or not. Jay is correct, everything, including this. must be considered in context. People sitting at their computers in warm rooms with no immediate threat to them are hardly the ones to make any judgement on any action we take to protect this country and its people (even the idiots).
By Corporal of the Guard
January 15, 2009 6:29 PM | Link to this
To God is watching us
To my knowledge, this is the first time I’ve ever heard from or replied to you (I’ve only been on this blog for about a year)……. You must have me confused with someone else. No death threats from me. I promise! Jay won’t allow that kind of stuff.
However, I prefer debate to name calling, etc., so if you would like to do that fine …. otherwise it’s been nice knowing you…..
Gob bless ………….
By Paul
January 15, 2009 6:30 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer 4:50
That sounds reasonable. I’ll just say that respect the people or not, it’s no reason to prosecute or not prosecute. And I’ll reiterate again: soldiers should never be involved in such ‘incidents.’
By Plagiarism is for Copycats
January 15, 2009 6:36 PM | Link to this
Let me be the first person to congratulate the inimitable President-elect Obama for protecting our great nation from a terrorist attack since the day of his election.
Such accolades were routinely lavished upon Bush by his deluded wingnut peanut gallery.
Wonder if they will laud Obama for the same thing?
Yeah, right.
By JAY BOOKMAN
January 15, 2009 7:02 PM | Link to this
You make a good point, PLAGIARISM. I
n fact, since they’re already blaming Obama for what has happened in the economy since Election Day, shouldn’t Obama at least be getting the credit for preventing another terror attack since November?
By God is watching us.
January 15, 2009 7:20 PM | Link to this
Lou Dobbs just interviewed a passenger on the ditched plane. He was still in shock and sputtering and stuttering and spitting and not making any sense…not the passenger, but Lou Dobbs. The passenger was calm but just couldn’t find the words to describe the experience inside that plane, so both interviewee and interviewer failed miserably.
Lou Dobbs should stick to his schtick about illegal aliens. He’s a one note sally. (and an idiot).
By God is watching us.
January 15, 2009 7:26 PM | Link to this
Bush will try to explain himself tonight. I wonder if he reads my blogs and try to steal my lols, like Bookman does, the dirty rat.
jklol
By Hillbilly Deluxe
January 15, 2009 7:38 PM | Link to this
My Daddy worked for many years with a man who was a POW in Germany in WWII. I think he has passed on now and I wouldn’t want to speak for him but from what he said over the years I think he would shake his head over this being called torture after what was done to him.
By God is watching us.
January 15, 2009 7:49 PM | Link to this
Lucky day for airline passengers.
By Copyleft
January 16, 2009 8:35 AM | Link to this
Pogo, you’re repeating a common error that comes from being a conservative, i.e., having no actual principles.
We don’t oppose torturing our prisoners “because it will result in our enemies being nicer”—that’s a silly fantasy cooked up on right-wing radio. We oppose it because it’s WRONG, nothing more.
As usual, the only ones with any moral sense, any awareness of right and wrong, are the liberals. And on the other side are bloodthirsty, violence-loving religious fanatics whose only answer to dissent and debate is: KILL THE UNBELIEVERS.
Now, for the $25,000 question: Do I mean Islamic terrorists, or American right-wingers? There’s really not much difference between them, after all.