Looks like the Senate voted to outlaw waterboarding and any other interrogation techniques that work. Now They will demand that interrogators say “pretty please” until they get full compliance, or even more likely, they just give up and send the bad guy on his merry way.
Who will they blame the next time we are attacked?
The Senate voted 51 to 45 on Wednesday afternoon to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency against high-level terrorism suspects.
Senate Republicans generally opposed the bill, but several of them also did not want to cast a vote that could be construed as supporting torture (pussies one and all), and so were relying on President Bush to make good on a threat to veto legislation limiting C.I.A. interrogation techniques.
The prohibition of harsh interrogation techniques is part of a wider intelligence authorization bill and would restrict all American interrogators to techniques allowed in the Army Field Manual, which bars the use of physical force.The House approved the bill in December by a vote of 222 to 199, mostly along party lines. Wednesday’s vote in the Senate was also along party lines. All the “no” votes were cast by Republicans, except for those of Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska. Five Republicans and Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, voted “yes.”
But the White House has long said Mr. Bush will veto the bill, saying it “would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.”
McCain showed up and voted against tying the hands of our interrogators, good for him.
Obama and Hillary? They were too busy to show up and vote. You have any guess why they wouldn’t want to be on record?
Cough….
Not long after the vote the libs were whining about McCain vote, which should shock no one. But what is actually kind of surprising is that he did vote no on this thing. Did he do it because he knew Bush would veto it?
I guess when it comes time to vote on that veto we will find out.
But what gets me in this whole thing is that waterboarding worked. It didn’t physically harm the person, it psychological made them feel like they were gonna drown, but after they were done they walked away from it with no physical damage done.
And it worked.
KSM gave up a ton of information against al-Qaeda which would never had known otherwise. It helped prevent attacks in this war against terror so…..lets just take it away. No physical violence needed, no breaking of fingers or electrocution. No gouging out of eyes or burning the skin. None of that.
What in the hell do these people think will work against the worst of the worst? Serving some krispy kreme doughtnuts? Or maybe Starbucks….woops, already tried.
Only going to get worse people if Hillary/Obama is elected. Only going to get worse.
See author page
The president should let it lay on his desk to become law and tell the American people (loud and clear) that all future attacks on America will be with the help of the democrat controlled congress.
I can’t find any other way to say this………the “pussyfication” of this nations defense arbitrated by our legislators will be the downfall of the libertys that so many of our armed forces have fought and died to preserve. To that end, all that voted to support this measure have not won the argument that we are above the morality of torture and therefore our enemies will respect the inkind contribution by only slicing one artery instead of both, or moving twenty feet away to avoid who dies when a suicide vest goes off.
If they REALLY wanted to stop these kinds of interrogation techniques, they’d have traded political concessions to the Republicans to get enough votes to make the bill veto proof. Instead, the DNC agenda is more important.
Meanwhile, I’m not sure, but is the use of Starbucks coffee banned by this bill too?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/13/they-did-what-to-the-gitmo-detainees/
More of this to come, and be sure no matter who is President, this will prevail. Were doomed.
Torture is wrong. No matter how much Conservatives love to see human beings tortured, justified by a combination of Fictinoal TV shows and comparisons to the worst-of-the-worst terrorists (it appears that, as long as you are not as bad as the worst person in the world, that is the bar of behavior that Conservatives set for themselves).
Torture is still wrong, and if America is to stand for anything, it must at least be that we don’t torture people. Unless wew are run by Conservatives, then the standard is, “we don’t torture as much as al Qaeda”.
Steve, you’re a credit to your cause-truly representative of it
I respectfully disagree, Steve. I’ve tried Starbucks before, and it’s absolutely survivable. It did leave a bad aftertaste in my mouth; but other than that, I find it no crueller than CoffeeBean. What I worry about, is who leaked intell, implicating Starbucks?
And yet here at Flopping Aces, we cruelly allow your comments to stand, exposing our readership to the unspeakable barbarism of your thoughts and feelings….
Torture is wrong.
While Steve is correct in this statement, the argument IS is waterbording considered torture? It certainly is NOT life threatening and the fear of drowning does usually get a response from the reciever. Let’s make believe Steve is the director of the CIA and has qualified knowledge that an individual has the information on the time and place that a nuke will be detonated close enough to wipe out his loved ones and a few million precious lives to boot. Steve’s subordinates believe that waterboarding this individual WILL prevent this disaster………Now Steve gets to set his “bar” of moral standards.
Wrong as usual Steve. I answered your moronic challenge and unfounded attacks on me and conservatives (who ARE independent of the RNC, but your hate, emotional issues and master’s programming will not let you see that) on another thread. But you will also cry that you are “persecuted” here with the above sentence I made. You are pathetic, hateful, and dead wrong as usual.
Scott,
You are so correct on our troll. He is a poster child for his masters.
This is what I see as happening from Congress’s rule change.
1. Well, at least they did something which they can be held accountable for. Noted are the Dems who voted against their party. Now this congress is responsible for something. We get the “moral high ground” but the costs could be more than we can handle. Our enemies, however, will not change. Nor will their hatred for everything we are. “Waterboarding” is now so well understood by our foes, and misunderstood by its opponents, that the technique is probably past usefulness. The Islamic fascist jihadists know the “torture” (which is laughable) will not kill them. It has lost its threat.
2. We will see a decrease in captured islamofascists vs and increased in killed. The islamofascists are trained to withstand being yelled at and bad coffee. Our remaining interrogation methods are good, but the threat of harsher measures are gone. I also forsee even more restrictions on the remaining methods we have.
With the loss of intelligence values in targets, why risk my Soldier’s lives in taking prisoners? Instead, we may see more stand-off attacks with artillery, Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) like JDAMS and Laser Guided Bombs, main-guns of tanks, Hellfires, and other such weapons. The islamofascists will then “hug” (keep close) civilians as human shields more than they do now. We will respond with snipers, intelligent grenades, and other weapons I will not go into.
3. For the hard-core leaders who actually know something, and are trained to withstand lesser methods, we may not see an attack coming. That is something I hope Congress and the left are prepared to accept and sleep at night with. Some morons think conservatives, who make up a near totality of the US Military, live in some fantasy land. I wish we did, but it is the left which proves daily that it lives in Hollywood fantasies. I deal in REALITY.
The reality is that we dispise harsh methods and wish we could get the Islamics to deal with their own problems. But that is a Hollywood fantasy. Reality is harsh and the lessons of history are painfully being learned again by the West and forgotton just as fast by the “anti-war” left.
We prosecuted others in the past for using water torture.
The Khmer Rouge used this form of torture.
Torture IS good for producing confessions.
Under torture people will confess. 500 years ago Christian Europe was able to stop the spread of Satanic witchcraft using torture. Witches would not only confess but they would also identify other witches, including the difficult to find “sleeper witches”
Are there other crimes for which you believe torture is justified ? Drug dealing ? Murder ? Should all P.O.Ws be routinely tortured, on the basis that it would save lives ?
Do other nations also have the “right” to torture ?
“Waterboarding” is now so well understood by our foes, and misunderstood by its opponents, that the technique is probably past usefulness. The Islamic fascist jihadists know the “torture” (which is laughable) will not kill them. It has lost its threat.
I’m skeptical of this line of argument (I’ve seen Curt say pretty much the same thing). Your thesis seems to be that waterboarding is unpleasant but not really unbearable, but that it tricks the person being waterboarded into thinking (rationally) that they are drowning. If this were true then, indeed, knowing that you were not likely to die might make a difference to whether you would crack. However, the accounts I’ve seen indicate that the technique is pretty much unbearable (when applied correctly) and that the fear of death/drowning is not some rationally held belief but rather a description of the primal response to having your bronchial tubes start to fill with water. There are really two arguments along these lines I guess; this one (which I guess I’d call the ‘Stupid Islamic Rubes’ argument) and the closely related ‘Wimpy Islamic Softies’ argument, which says that waterboarding works in breaking down Islamic terrorists but that’s just because they’re not that tough, not because it’s really that bad. The thought that the CIA, after evaluating its options for many years, might have hit upon a technique that’s both non-lethal and yet unbearable enough to qualify as torture seems somehow not to occur to you.
I think your strongest arguments in favor of waterboarding are the utilitarian ones laid out by Dershowitz and others. The argument that waterboarding isn’t torture is in my opinion one that you will lose.
At the UN Foundation’s new website, On Day One there is a whole category devoted to the issue of torture. The opinion is currently leaning strongly in a direction different from Flopping Aces. If you’d like to get in there and stir up a little discussion, it could get interesting.
I found a few articles by Dershowitz that I think you are referencing. And yes, the Islamic jihadists do break, but interrogation is not my MOS. And now, I doubt many in combat commands will risk taking prisoners unless specifically directed to do so. If they surrender so be it, that is different and we do not shoot people surrendering (“false flag” surrenders being the exception). Nor should any of these methods be used against legitimate POWs. Al Qaeda, Maadi, and others are not legitimate combattants as defined by the Law of Land Warfare, unless Congress changes that also.
In one article http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010832
I found this nice quote on when congress should allow harsher techniques against an illegal combatant. It was also made by a man with a law degree.
And further on:
That is why, in these very rare cases, the measures were taken. The so-called hypothetical “what if’s” happened and the same people attacking the US for doing this would be attacking the President for not doing enough. It is a Catch 22 and even President Clinton acknowledged the need. Note also, he was not speaking of a POW, but an illegal combattant.
In another Article: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Dershowitz_US_shouldnt_hide_use_of_1116.html
And it must be noted that Congress was fully briefed on these tactics and they were used in very rare, pressing circumstances. These actions were done in the open under congressional watch.
So now what? What is acceptable treatment for these illegal combattants? Do they get full POW rights? Do they get legal protection equal to US citizens (note: the threatment of the Haditha Marines was truly shameful while we treat the illegal combattants at GITMO with soft gloves)? Do we not detain them at all?
I hear attack after attack (and many are baseless), but no solutions. If the left is so smart and not just a bunch of elitist partisans, then what are their solutions and what are the costs (in opprotunity and US Civilian/Military Casualties) they are willing to accept?
OnDayOne,
I have no interest in the UN. If they want to talk true torture, then they can start by having accountability for their “peacekeepers” who rape, pillage, and/or stand by as REAL atrocity after atrocity occurs. Then we can reopen “Oil for Food” and a multitude of others.
Considering most UN members commonly use methods which are true, and destructive torture, they need to clean their own homes before questioning the impossible standards they place on the USA.
“Let’s make believe Steve is the director of the CIA and has qualified knowledge that an individual has the information on the time and place that a nuke will be detonated close enough to wipe out his loved ones and a few million precious lives to boot. Steve’s subordinates believe that waterboarding this individual WILL prevent this disaster………Now Steve gets to set his “bar” of moral standards.”
Rove,
You know what’s funny?
I posed almost the exact same scenario to Stevie in at least two other threads.
Guess what…. he avoided the answers completely.
He has proven over and over again that he doesn’t have the cajones to face the facts and answer the tough questions that go with them.
He sits in the safety of his Mommy’s basement and speaks from his rectum.
Re: “Now Steve gets to set his “bar” of moral standards.”
Rovin. Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful disagreement (Honest. No sarcasm meant in the least).
I do understand the “imminent threat” concept and the extreme measures even I would understand. However those situations are, outside of TV and movie fiction, few and very far between. (The towers picture that gets posted every five minutes is the only, unsubstantiated by independent observers, claim to that effect).
However that extreme situation is, I believe, being used as an execuse to torture people who are much lower, or evern non-existant, threats to the united States. and the torture of people who cannot be proven to have posed such a threat constitutes such a smear on everything that America used to stand for that it, I believe, causes much more harm than any information these (low threat) individuals pose.
(Remember, in the movies and TV, they always make sure to show the villian planting the bomb, and setting the timer in the first half hour, just so you, the viewer knows who the bag guy is and why it is OK to torture him. In real life we do not have those videos to see).
To re-use the Abu Graibe example: Many of the prisoners were in that jail solely because they did not have proper ID with them, not that they were caught with weapons in their hands. However the pictures of the torture and humiliation caused harm to the United States that will take a generation to overcome. The fact that the lowest levels of guards were punished does nothing to counteract that harm: Especially in light of Conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh calling the torture “hijinxt or “pranks”.
If you want to torture someone, then, I believe, you had better be displaying the time bomb that was found, with the timer counted down to “.007” seconds, for all the world to see to justify the torture. Then you will have my support. But just pictures and claims will not be enough to counter the recruiting posters for al Qaeda that tortured human beings, at American Hands, without clearly identified specific, independently documentd threats constitutes.
The accounts of KSM being waterboarded are contraditory. Some say he was, some say he wasn’t. But, whatever, the case may be, he broke. The same can be said of the other one or two AQ detainees. They broke. KSM revealed an active plot to bring down the LA Library tower which was already in its final stages. All the AQ cell had to do was execute the plan. Now, I’m sure LAPD personnel, including Curt, and are happy that plan didn’t come to fruition. No mass casualties, no mass panic, no large-scale destruction. What resulted was to deny Curt and the rest of SoCal police personnel an opportunity to take home a large amount of overtime pay.
So, it comes down to, what do you want – a terrorist attack or safety?
Steve,
I fail to see why you keep citing movies and TV. We do not base our views on such nonsense. Personally, I have never watched “24”. I watch very little TV in general as it is. However, I have sat through multiple threat briefings and intelligence updates which would give one nightmares.
Steve, KSM was THE planner of the 911 attacks, and he was not some “lower” guy. He was also the operations planner for several other attacks.
Conservative this, conservative that….blah blah blah. If someone disagrees with Steve, they’re a sadistic, warmongering, bible-thumping, lemming-like conservative.
Ridiculous. The Abu Gharib prisoners were not “tortured.” If you set the bar that low to deem something torture, ie. panties on heads and making someone stand for a long amount of time, then we all know where the real problem is.
As for his use of TV and other nonsense Chris, its the usual lefty line. We are back at 9/10/01 in their eyes where the lefties wrote that terrorism really isn’t that big of a deal and we should all get our head out of the thriller books and into reality. 9/11 occurred, they shut up about it for awhile but they are back in their denial of reality. That reality is that there really are some pretty evil guys out there who plan on hurting us pretty damn bad. 9/11 took a dozen men willing to meet those virgins, a bit of money and planning and little else. Bam….3,000 lives lost. In minutes.
But hey, it only happens on tv. There will never be a ticking time bomb to these people because deep down they just can’t believe that people can be that evil. It just can’t be.
So now where are we? We have lost the usefulness of a interrogation technique that worked 100% of the time, and lost it forever. The left wants to get rid of loud music and sleep deprivation, and hell…why not throw in forcing someone to stand for long periods of time.
What will be left to break the worst of the worst? Nothing. The information on that ticking time bomb stays locked inside his head and many people will die. But at least we can feel good about the fact that we didn’t make someone believe he was gonna drown.
And, I point out, what will you Conservatives say the day the world learns that some ten year old girl was tortured by some American Contractor because he “heard” that she knew where a bomb was? But there was no bomb and the story just came from a disgruntled neighbor.
Such an event will also cost American lives as al Qaeda uses it to recruit tens of thousands of adherents.
Since Conservatives like to pose made-up scenarios, what will you say to that one? (I already answered the “24” based questions above).
That hasn’t happened, 9/11 did. My scenario was reality, yours is nothing but hogwash.
When you come to grips with reality let us all know, but we all wont be holding our breath for that day.
What question? You made an assertion. But if your talking about your idiotic little girl scenario then asking a question to answer a question is not really answering is it?
Steve, that’s a terrible and sad story about the little girl-true or not, but I still have yet to see you justify that conservatives love to see people suffer, and since the Democrats’ Congress is funding the war(the contractors) that they promoted, authorized, and pledge to continue I don’t see how the “love to see people suffer” claim is pinned on conservatives.
Of course it’s wrong to torture little girls. Those very same people you’ve claimed are conservatives who love to see people suffer have condemned such an act thus your “what will you say to that one” question has been answered several times. Still, given the vested interest by both the violent enemy in the war and the political opposition that shares the enemy’s objective, it’s hard to see past the long list of propaganda and false stories. True, false? I dunno. If true, it’s wrong. If false, then those who promote it as if it were true are guilty of AIDING the enemy by AIDING in their propaganda effort.
Where DOES this “24” thing come from? I didn’t see any of your so-called conservatives bring it up. Myself (among those you’ve labeled a conservative), I’ve actually never watched the show. Not once.
Why do you deliberately choose to label people and positions that you disagree with as conservative even if they’re Democrats and/or bi-partisan positions? It’s like you’re in denial that the Democrats are even involved-like everything is the fault of your sadistic, warmongering, bible-thumping, lemming-like conservatives.
Re: “Steve, that’s a terrible and sad story about the little girl-true or not, but I still have yet to see you justify that conservatives love to see people suffer, and since the Democrats’ Congress is funding the war(the contractors) that they promoted, authorized, and pledge to continue I don’t see how the “love to see people suffer” claim is pinned on conservatives. ”
The fact that the Democratic office holders I voted to put in office have proven to have less spine than a jellyfish does not justify torture. I take my “all Conservatives” comments from the Republican presidential debates, where a “24” scenario was put in front of all the “Conservative” candidates for president and every one of them rushed to say how much tey would torture a suspect (particualrly Rudy Guiliani).
So, yes “my” Democrats have proven to be weak and pushed around by a Republican Minorty that is lockstep in line with White House dictates. That still does not make it right.
Again, that 24 type scenario happened. It CAN happen again. Wishing that away won’t make it go away.
You really are a lost cause, a man with no hold on reality, so I wonder why we keep debating you. Guess its something to do when we’re bored.
Distraction again Steve?
I agree that those two facts are not joined, but…that wasn’t my point was it? My point was that you label torture as a conservative thing, but it is not, and thus an accurate description is not “conservatives love to see people suffer” since the permission to torture is bi-partisan and not just conservative. Was it Pelosi, Reid, Daschle, Rockefeller, and who else that knew about KSM getting waterboarded back in 03 and said nothing, did nothing, permitted it to happen?
As to your claim that “24” scenarios were only presented in Republican debates, you’re as wrong as usual. Similar questions were posed to Democrats-though their questions weren’t about torture and were instead about whether or not Obama and Clinton would invade an ally despite the ally having nuclear weapons. Both said they would btw. Still, the “24” scenarios are bi-partisan in their debate presentation as well.
Why do you ignore and hide from the involvement, support, authorization, and permission that the Democratic Party with the Republicans in contradiction to your positions? Are you embarassed by the Dems’ ineptitude, gutlessness, incompetence, acquiescence, appeasement, surrender, and participation in all that the stir their base about?
Again,
They LOUDLY opposed the invasion of Iraq, then quietly authorized it.
They LOUDLY opposed the funding, then quietly authorized it.
They LOUDLY opposed the occupation, the quietly continue to authorize it.
They LOUDLY opposed the Patriot Act (which they co-wrote), then authorize it.
They LOUDLY opposed the 2nd Patriot Act, then they authorize it.
They LOUDLY cried BUSH LIED, demanded investigations, then when in control of Congress halted the investigations.
They LOUDLY cry about “domestic spying” then quietly authorize it.
They LOUDLY wail about “torture”, then quietly continue to allow it.
At what point does one ask if all the loud wailing from the Democratic Party leaders is just wailing, and not substantive? If it’s just spin to fuel their base, and not substance? Fact is, either they’re LOUD liars, or their actually more incompetent than the Bush Administration for they continue to authorize, allow, fund, and continue everything that they get their base all riled up about.
Face it Steve, you’re little more than their willing pawn-deliberately blind to all they do, deaf when told of what they’ve done, and see only one side of a coin instead of both…
I understand they also tried to outlaw Oldsmobile water drowning, but Teddy Kennedy and Philadelphia Steve opposed it, Although Miss Kapechny was unavailable for comment.
Proof positive that “conservatives love to see people suffer” is false. It’s a bi-partisan thing that is not exclusive to conservatives, and I can prove it. Yes, we all enjoy watching Steve suffer, but his infinite cut/paste rantings along with illogical partisan claims demonstrates that from the other side of the political spectrum, Steve enjoys torturing everyone else. It’s a bi-partisan thing, and I feel comfortable with the idea that if Khalid Sheik Mohammed had a choice between being waterboarded for 2 minutes, or trying to trade emails with Steve…he’d have chosen waterboarding.
Re: “Again,
They LOUDLY opposed the invasion of Iraq, then quietly authorized it.
……….
They LOUDLY wail about “torture”, then quietly continue to allow it”
As I said, the fact that those I elected to be strong have proven to be both weak and hypocrites has not shaken my resolve that torture is wrong.
I have heard rumors that you Conservatives have questioned the wisdom, or even sanity, of the Republicans you have elected to office, particularly in regards to their adherence to fiscal discipline and enforcement of immigration laws. That has not altered you belief in those positions, has it? Nor will it likely prevent you from voting them right back into office, if they are standing for election where you live. We all have to make compromises on the inadequacies of those we vote for office. And the fact that I enjoy watching Conservatives here have an aneurism when I declare that they are “100% subservient” to the Republican Party does not mean I really do understand their frustration and feeling of betrayal Conservatives must feel when they confront the fact that “Conservative” George W. Bush is as big a spender as Lyndon Johnson.
Imagine my opinion of Harry Reid! President Bush could not get his eavesdropping amnesty bill through a Republican Senate, but “my” Senator Reid helped him get it through a Democratic one! (By the way, please don’t post about that particular issue here; it will be too much of a diversion. I was just using it as an example of my own frustration with “my own” political party.)
The rumblings you have heard from Rush Limbaugh about John McCain are nothing compared to the things I have written to my Democratic representatives in Congress about their lack of testicular fortitude. Pennsylvania Republican Senator Specter always was “concerned” about White House behavior, but everyone knew that, as a loyal Republican, we would always roll over for the Bush team, every time. Who would have expected the same from Senator Reid?
In hindsight, losing Congress in 2006 may have given the Republican Party the best chance of winning the White House (and Congress) in 2008 possible.
And we (the Democrats) will deserve every bit of humiliation that comes with such a defeat.
——————————————————-
Re: “Again, that 24 type scenario happened. It CAN happen again. Wishing that away won’t make it go away. ”
Show me the link, with the picture of the ticking time bomb that was defused.
——————————–
Re: “As to your claim that “24″ scenarios were only presented in Republican debates, you’re as wrong as usual”
Here’s the link and the question that was asked. Show me the link with this exact question asked fo a Democratic debate. (by the way, I was wrong when I said that ll the Candidates supported torture, but I was right that Rudi, who was the most bloodthristy. I’m glad that creep bombed out early).
http://www.answers.com/topic/republican-presidential-debates-2008
The fictional ticking time bomb scenario suggested by the moderator was: “Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they are being questioned. U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack is planned and could come at any time.”[9] John McCain and Ron Paul were the only candidates who said they were opposed to the concept of “enhanced interrogation techniques”,[10] a phrase Paul labeled Orwellian newspeak for torture.[11] Mitt Romney suggested that the U.S. double the size of facilities holding non-citizen enemy combatants held in places like Guantanamo and deny them access to the protections afforded to American citizens, such as the right of having an attorney. Giuliani said interrogators should use “any method they can think of” and did not exclude water-boarding.[12] Expressing disbelief at the idea of debating “whether or not waterboarding would be a bad thing to do” Tom Tancredo said “I’m looking for Jack Bauer.”[13]
—————-
Sorry for the long post. I’ve been chastised for multiple posting and do not wish to run afoul of the sheriff again.
Steve, your comments are not in response to mine per the re’s you list.
This is a distraction on your part. My point isn’t torture right/wrong. It’s that authorizing it is not a conservative thing. It’s a bi-partisan thing and the fact that you recognize the Democrats you elected as having been weak etc shows that you recognize the Democrats’ defacto authorization of waterboarding etc.; i.e. it’s not a “conservative” thing as you claimed. Fifth time: my point is not right/wrong re torture, but whether it is a conservative trait as you claim, or a bi-partisan one as you recognize, but repeatedly try to skip past without effect.
If you really cared about the issue, you’d cry out at least equally to both parties, or even more loudly about the party in power that could be doing something about it (like trading pork spending or lesser agenda items for more votes to ban “torture”). Instead, you choose to try and present it as if the problem is conservatives who like to see people suffer, and not a party in power that sees its own agenda and power as more important than an issue you clearly feel strongly about.
second, you completely missed my point about your “24” comments. Please go back and re-read them. I didn’t say there was an exact repetition of a question in two debates. I said comments that were like “24” were given to both D/R. Ranting and raving about Republicans who said it’s ok to waterboard, and then trying to skip past the fact that the Democrats you and I elected authorize it is dishonest. Maybe you think it’s ok to cherry-pick political facts, warp or distort the truth, or present only half a story to protect and promote your political agenda, but it’s not. If it’s wrong for conservative Republicans to distort the truth as you so often cry, then it’s even more wrong for you to do so. The ends do not justify your means.
“Torture is wrong.”
I hope, Steve, that it’s Philadelphia (or Jerkley at least) that gets the dirty bomb and not where I live. Fisa lapses, and now this. The American people are going to pay a heavy price for this election largesse.
But here’s the question, Steve- if waterboarding would save your children, is it still wrong?
Would you sanction it if it would save your wife’s life?
Re: “It’s that authorizing it is not a conservative thing. ”
You are right about that, to my great consternation.
—————————-
Re: “If you really cared about the issue, you’d cry out at least equally to both parties, or even more loudly about the party in power that could be doing something about it (like trading pork spending or lesser agenda items for more votes to ban “torture”). ”
Republicans would never trade their votes for LESS pork barrel spending.
Specifically pork barrel spending is a red herring. No Republican is going to be any more responsible that any Democrat. President Bush only “got religion” due to the Democrats taking control of Congress. were Republicans still in charge I guarantee that we would see “willing George” as much as we ever did. I also guarantee that, were the White House to have its way, not one single “Pork barrel” project from a solid republican district would be touched. So, just as you tell me that torture is not a “Conservative” penchent, also do not pretend that the biggest spenders are Democrats.
If you follow this link, you will see a lot more Red than Blue states at the top of the list.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
The only difference is that the Democrats are (in my opinion) honest enough to also ask for the taxes to pay for their spending. Republicans believe it is all a FREE LUNCH (“Deficits don’t matter”, dick Cheney) and pass the debt on to others (their children). (And I dare you to deny that one).
———————————
Re”I didn’t say there was an exact repetition of a question in two debates. I said comments that were like “24″ ”
And I WAS talking about torture, and Conservatives citing “24” as their proof. Your comment was the digression to that argument. (except where you rightly pointed out the spinelesness of the Democrats).
Find for me a sinlge Liberal who has said anything like this.
Steve,
Does the comment by former President Clinton I cited at #13 count as your single leftist? And were the Democrats asked the exact same question? I keep wondering why these debates do not ask the same questions as it makes comparisons like this difficult.
Steve, everyone here who you’ve labeled a “conservative”, described as a sadistic, warmongering, bible-thumpin, lemming eagerly awaits your apology for saying “conservatives enjoy watching people suffer”
“Re: “It’s that authorizing it is not a conservative thing. ”
You are right about that, to my great consternation.”
Re: “Does the comment by former President Clinton I cited at #13 count as your single leftist? ”
He has the same opinion as I regarding the torture of prisoners.
And, like all Conservatives, if even on Liberal does something, that is the alibi for 100 Conservatives.
Conservatives have used that as cover for Geroge W. Bush throughout his administration.
——————————–
re: “Steve, everyone here who you’ve labeled a “conservative”, described as a sadistic, warmongering, bible-thumpin, lemming”
I never used the word “lemming” 🙂
And, if a moment of introspective honesty, revealing the rank inadequacies of my own party is to be taken as a sign of weakness, then perhaps the attitude displayed by pagar on the Valentine’s Day thread should be our overall standard. Is that your preference?
The Liberals in Congress, and elsewhere are not the ones on soapboxes, citing “24” to justify torture (as per my link above). That is a 100% Conservative attitude. Liberals/Democrats are guilty of the sin of not taking sufficient action to stop it, and even allowing it through autorizations. The guilt, in my opinion, is no less. But to stand up and, for all the world to see, demand torture of prisoners, based on a TV show, is another level of disgrace. and I still maintain that it demeans America.
You’re right Steve, I shoulda used the word “described” instead of “labeled” for there is no doubt you’ve described as such.
Clearly your best apology ever, and the least distraction demonstrated yet
[/sarasm off]
“But here’s the question, Steve- if waterboarding would save your children, is it still wrong?
Would you sanction it if it would save your wife’s life?”
drjohn,
Don’t expect an answer.
I have repeatedly asked Stevie those same questions and he has not yet responded in any way, shape, or form.
Those questions create a real conundrum for him.
If he answers “No, it’s not wrong if it will save my wife or children” then he’s a weasel who types empty, meaningless words on the Internet. A weasel who will save his own family while standing back and saying that anyone else’s wife or children can die unless there’s a “picture of the ticking bomb.”
If he answers “Yes, it’s wrong even it it will save my wife or children” then he’s a heartless, spineless, brainless weasel who doesn’t deserve to have a wife or children.
Either way, he’s a weasel to some degree.
Of course that’s not news to anyone here.
Re: ““But here’s the question, Steve- if waterboarding would save your children, is it still wrong?
Would you sanction it if it would save your wife’s life?””
If my family’s lives were at stake there is nothing I would not do, right or wrong, to save them. But some things would still be wrong, even if I did it.
That still does not justify state sanctioned torture of prisoners in the absence of a documented, ticking time bomb that can be produced at the end of the “show” for all the world to see as having justified that torture.
And Conservatives keep using the most extreme “24” example as a cover for torture in cases that are a lot less dramatic, without making the distinction.
And that lack of standards. That “torture is ok if I saw it on “24” (see my FoxNews link from YouTube above) will lead, I believe, to the “torture of a ten year old gilr on a disgruntled neighbor’s word”. And that event will be on the al Qaeda recruiting posters (and their successors, of which some will always exist) for a generation. And not one sinlge Conservative here will acknowledge their “24” cover stories from fellow Conservatives bear even the slightest responsibility for such an event: As Conservatives never acknowledge personal accountability. Here or anywhere else: That is only something they hold over others.
So I ask, was Conservative hero Greta wrong to say what she did on FoxNews?
Greta? Geesh rofl!
“As Conservatives never acknowledge personal accountability.”…but your apologies are always so sincere, clear, and heartfelt
Re: “Greta? Geesh rofl!
“As Conservatives never acknowledge personal accountability.”…but your apologies are always so sincere, clear, and heartfelt”
Yes. They are. Despite your sneers.
Your unrelenting hatred for me, and anyone who does not fit your “perfect” Conservative mold has always been obvious.
I answered the question about what I would do for my family. And added that even that does not make my actions “right”. However Conservatives must consider such introspection to be too “weak” for they themselves to ever show any degree of self revelation. Conservatives, like their heros Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Rielly must make all their statements shouted at the top of their lungs, filled with venom and absolute certainty, and calling down fire upon everyone else. I consider thoughtful, self revealing comments to be indicative of true strength, because it reveals a willingness to admit failure, and change: Something we have seen President Bush as completely incapable of doing, and every single Convervative following his lead.
Which is why you would not directly answer my question.
Ta Daaaa!
Well there you go.
Now we know what kind of weasel Stevie is.
If his “family’s lives were at stake there is nothing I would not do, right or wrong, to save them.”
Let me clue you in on something Stevie. If your family’s life is at stake, saving their lives through whatever means necessary is the only “right” thing to do. Your actions to save them, whatever they may be, would not be “wrong.”
If some…
Actually, you know what? Nevermind.
You’ve proven over and over again to be brainless and I won’t continue to waste my time trying to remedy that situation for you.
Living in the safety and security of Mommy’s basement must be a really comforting situation since it provides you with the ability to totally avoid the reality of what we are facing on a daily basis.
You, sir, are a worthless weasel. You’re willing to do whatever you have to do to save your own family, and your own worthless skin, but if anyone else’s family is in danger you have all sorts of conditions and prerequisites.
LOL Steve, complains about someone not answering a question or ignoring a fact. CLASSIC!!!!!! omg, that made my DAY!
If your family’s life is at stake, saving their lives through whatever means necessary is the only “right” thing to do. Your actions to save them, whatever they may be, would not be “wrong.”
Nonetheless it is possible to take the position that something should be illegal, even if under certain extreme circumstances it may be justified. The common law already provides an escape hatch in the form of the necessity defense for these situations. I personally am perfectly comfortable with having waterboarding and any other tyes of enhanced interrogation be illegal; this raises the bar for their use to the point where those applying these techniques would have to be so certain of the suspect’s guilt, so sure of his knowledge of the ticking bomb, that they would be willing to face a judge and defend their actions as necessary to prevent a greater evil. I am not the only one who has advanced this position, though I know it’s not satisfactory to some here.
Also, it’s possible to have opinions on what the law should be that are at variance with your own actions in a certain situation without being some sort of monstrous hypocrite. Laws are made to achieve practical goals, and while we expect them to be fairly just they are necessarily an imperfect tool. Being able to come up with situations where I would break the law (either the ‘terrorists threaten my family’ example, or just something more mundane involving civil disobedience) is not sufficient *either* to demonstrate that the law is bad *or* to condemn me personally.
Again with the blanket attacks, but if we respond, you feel persecuted for some reason. Sorry, Steve, I have the “win an arguement on a blog” manual you are using and forwarded it to the other writers of this blog. You follow it well. And if you read other threads, you would see I commented on others wishing that the left got what that person believed was the result of their actions.
But in your hatred for all things “conservative”, you missed it, or ignor it because that manual says to. My postition is the same as President Clinton’s on this, though I dissagree with him on most every other position he has and many actions he has taken.
bbartlog
I agree with your position, and appreciate your eloquent description of it.
re:”I agree with your position, and appreciate your eloquent description of it.”
It would be wrong to challenge the party in power to demand change, and far more effective to attack the minority. If waterboarding 3 people is wrong and allowing a President to make special exceptions to waterboard in an extreme case is wrong, then put pressure on those who can do something to change it. Hold them accountable. Attacking the minority ain’t gonna do it-particularly from a position of extreme political bias, proven deceit (or gross ignorance), and intolerance. Naaaaah, why bother holding those we elect accountable. If they have a D next to their name then they don’t deserve that standard.
Re: ” If they have a D next to their name then they don’t deserve that standard.”
And those with “R” in front of them have been held accountable? Last I saw they were all getting Medals of Freedom for their incompetence.
————————————
Someone else our Conservative hero Aye Chihuahua wold consider a weak “weasel”:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07294/826876-35.stm
I served 30 years in the U.S. Army as an intelligence officer, which included extensive experience as an interrogator in Vietnam, in Panama and during the 1991 Gulf War. In the course of these sensitive missions, my teams and I collected mountains of excellent, verified information, despite the fact that we never laid a hostile hand on a prisoner. Had one of my interrogators done so, he would have been disciplined and most likely relieved of his duties.
Since my retirement, I have twice answered the Army’s call, journeying to Guantanamo and Iraq to evaluate interrogation procedures. Subsequently, when the terrible tsunami of verified reports of detainee torture by American soldiers overwhelmed the dikes, the Army asked me to assist in training a new battalion of Iraq-bound Army interrogators in non-coercive interrogation techniques.
…
It [torture] also tells us that our young soldiers take away lessons from today’s pop culture. Self-styled “experts” on interrogation frequently cite the “ticking bomb scenario” (featured on shows like “24”) to justify the Jack Bauer-like tormenting of a prisoner. According to this construct, it is necessary and acceptable to torture in the name of saving an American city from “the next 9-11.” This has a magnetic appeal to legions of Americans, among them future soldiers.
But the so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a Hollywood construct that I never encountered in my 30-year career. Even so, it has become the rallying cry of many well-intentioned but ethically challenged military and civilian personnel. And it has been hawked by a large constituency of senior government officials, from the White House to the Department of Justice to Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, and is most recently evidenced in the surfacing of a January 2005 memo, written almost a year after Abu Ghraib, that characterizes face slapping and waterboarding as acceptable conduct.
STUART HERRINGTON
Yes, Steve, those with R’s next to their name were held to account in the 2004 and 2006 elections. Democrats have not been held to account, and despite being the party in control, you do not hold them to account. Given your gross bias towards D’s and against R’s, it seems that the only reason you do not hold them to account is because you care more about the party policies and platform than patriotic check and balance.
“Someone else our Conservative hero Aye Chihuahua wold consider a weak “weasel””
Col. Herrington served his country with honor and I appreciate his service.
When he steps forward and says that “torture” is wrong, I respect his opinion.
When (if) he steps forward and says that “torture” is wrong except when it will save the lives of my family that is when he will become a weasel like you Stevie.
Correction:
<When (if) he steps forward and says that “torture” is wrong except when it will save the lives of his family that is when he will become a weasel like you Stevie.