Just one more reason I’m happy this man is our President:
The White House says President Bush will veto legislation on Saturday that would have barred the CIA from using waterboarding — a technique that simulates drowning — and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.
Bush has said the bill would harm the government’s ability to prevent future attacks. Supporters of the legislation argue that it preserves the United States’ right to collect critical intelligence while boosting the country’s moral standing abroad.
“The bill would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror, the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives,” deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday.
The bill would restrict the CIA to using only the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual.
The legislation would bar the CIA from using waterboarding, sensory deprivation or other coercive methods to break a prisoner who refuses to answer questions. Those practices were banned by the military in 2006.
Thankfully we have a President who refuses to announce to the world that when it comes to our nations security he will not play the PC game as Europe does. My question is which way will McCain vote on the override that will come soon enough?
Or will he find a reason to miss the vote?
Either way, to celebrate you should check out the new Bash dvd from PatDollard. It’s a kick in the pants and just what you need to celebrate the fact that, for the next ten months at least, we have a President who doesn’t kowtow to the newest “feel good” political correctness movement. A PC movement that ensures our hands are tied just enough to endanger this nations security ala The Gorelick Wall.
See author page
I’ve always liked Bush, even when everyone else was attacking him on fiscal policy and immigration.
He’s going to have a killer legacy, I predict. The economy’s tough right now, sure, but Bush’ll be remember for Iraq, which we’re winning. The administration sees it, the military sees it, the American people see it, and Iraqis themselves see it – as they increasingly renounce their own religion’s fight against the historic forces of freedom.
The best news I heard all day.
The moonbats are going to choke and gasp like they’re the ones being waterboarded.
(I can’t wait.)
Bush had to know what battles to fight, give to get in the face of a hostile press, hostile members of the opposition and later as a lame duck. As such, he has managed to trump the left on almost everything they’ve thrown at him. He made a committment to keep this country safe and kept it. His legacy will not be what the left is hoping for.
This veto is the right thing, it’s rare, it was monitored and effective when used and it should be retained. The CIA needs this tool to protect our country and our troops.
Philly Steve just wet his panties.
We are sure going to miss George Bush in our household. It’s pretty scary to think of the Dims in control .
The amount of mileage the Left has gotten out of the waterboarding issue has always struck me as just another example of Bush’s failure to push back against his critics pr-wise.
Waterboarding has been used a total of three times against the sort of freaks who take personal pride in hacking off people’s heads, it generally doesn’t last more than a minute or two before the people subjected to it cave, doesn’t leave any permanent damage (some of our own military undergo it in training) and has yielded information that has saved many lives. Now this is my kind of “torture”!
The fact that the Left has been able to get up on their high moral horses on this one is pretty remarkable. Not only are they (and yes I know McCain is against it, too. Please, let’s not go there) wrong tactically, they’re wrong morally.
Bush’s inability to make the case on this one is just bad salesmanship, pure and simple, bad salemanship being one of his greatest flaws as President.
Excellent news. Hopefully it will last… And I must confess, that it is fun to think about some of the libs waterboarding themselves over this news!
I’m confused as to whether McCain has flip flopped on the issue. He told me last November that he was opposed to waterboarding citing the military commanders who also oppose it. But I failed to get a follow up question as to whether he thought the CIA could do it in certain circumstances.
As Nocomme1 points out, this has never been an issue where we would be waterboarding large numbers of people. The military doesn’t do it at all.
Mike, I think you’re right in that McCain did a flip-flop on the matter.
I read it somewhere, like in the last 7-10 days, that he supports the notion CIA should have “harsh interrogation techniques” at their disposal. He also noted such instances of their use would be rare. That sounds like what we were doing now.
Something to make Conservatives everywhere happy. America now stands for torturing prisoners.
Otherwise, he wouldn’t object when THREE TERRORIST MONSTERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SEPTEMBER 11TH were waterboarded to prevent further attacks.
The Library Tower in L.A. (photo right) was one of the targets of plots foiled because we waterboarded these bastards.
Drive up Interstate 95 Steve towards New York City as I used to do. I knew I was approaching home when I saw the following sight in distance:
That view is no longer there and it’s because of people like you.
Re: “at view is no longer there and it’s because of people like you.”
Are you accusing me of being directly responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks?
“Something to make Conservatives everywhere happy. America now stands for torturing prisoners.”
Something to make Liberals happy. Allowing the deaths of thousands of Americans because they don’t want to expose a handfull of sword-wielding head-loppers to 2 minutes of discomfort from which they don’t suffer any lasting effects.
That’s some interesting sense of morality and proportionality ya got going there, Philadelphia Steve.
I believe the phrase Mike used was “People LIKE you”! Philly
Not you in particular.
But if you insist YEAH!
Waterboarding? PLEASE!! That’s only going to make someone cry for a few minutes, feel guilty for giving in for a few hours and prevent American deaths for a few years possibly even a lifetime!
Just be glad I’m not going to be President, because I would have the terrorist’s not just waterboarded, but waterboarded with a curling Iron PLUGGED IN while the interrigation was going on!
Then again I want to PREVENT another 9-11 not just POSTPONE!!
“Are you accusing me of being directly responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks?”
Yes.
People like you are entirely responsible for the defeatist, self-loathing mindset that fails to see evil for what it is.
You’ve invested all your time and energy at this site trashing the conservatives who take national security and the war declared on us by Islamic fanatics seriously. You’ve done everything you can to handcuff those who would keep you and the rest of us safe from the monsters who did kill Americans and would do so again.
Security is a wonderful thing, I’ll grant you. You know what’s better?
Freedom.
Iraq isn’t a war against terror. The so-called “War on Terror” is not against terror. The “War on Terror” is a ploy to make us scared, to try to get Americans to shrink back and say “I am afraid. Protect me.”
I’m an American, goddammit. I’m not afraid. If somebody wants to blow me up because I love my freedom, well that’s just too bad. I’m not giving it up. And anyone who thinks that giving away their Constitutional rights is going to protect them from anything deserves what they get.
This isn’t a war against terror. This is a war for the very soul of this country. I was astonished to wake up one day and find out that there was actually a debate happening on whether torture was okay. In my country! And then I saw on the news that the former chief of the NSA had no idea that the Fourth Amendment contained the words “probable cause.” Was this man laughed out of the government for such staggering ignorance? By god, no, his punishment for having no clue of what the Constitution of the United States had to say about his job was to be promoted. To head of the CIA.
Oh, and don’t bring up the “Library Tower plot” ever again if you want to be taken seriously. The plot was at best “not going to happen,” but more likely it was “totally made up.” Of course, you probably think that the prohibition against liquids on a plane is a justified security measure and not, as rational people believe, totally retarded, so, do what you like.
Wow, Geliga. I think I actually heard the stirring strains of the Star Spangled Banner as I read your brave, clueless comments. *SNIFF* Very moving.
Well, you’re right that we’re not in a war on terrorism, terrorism being a tactic of war. It describes the methods the enemy uses it doesn’t describe who the enemy is. The enemy is radical Islam.
“The “War on Terror” is a ploy to make us scared, to try to get Americans to shrink back and say “I am afraid. Protect me.” From this I gather you think we have nothing to worry about, we have no real enemy. The whole thing is made up, I guess? (Isn’t that what you Lefties were saying about communism all through the 20th century when the commies were slaughtering tens of millions of people?) In response, I’d like to draw your attention to a very large hole in the ground in Manhattan. Also, in furtherance of your education I suggest you look into this site http://thereligionofpeace.com/ which describes the less than pacific nature of our very real enemy. You also might want to visit any one of the many mosques in London (and many other towns and cities throughout the world) where you can easily pick up some very fascinating literature about how to slaughter non-believers.
In your argument I see you use the word torture without explaining the specifics of and context of the specific act of “torture” we’re talking about here. I shall repeat myself, because I said it so eloquently before: “Allowing the deaths of thousands of Americans because they don’t want to expose a handfull of sword-wielding head-loppers to 2 minutes of discomfort from which they don’t suffer any lasting effects.” If that is moral to you, my friend, you and I live in two entirely different moral universes.
Since when does the 4th Amendment (or any of them) apply to people who are not Americans, have declared war on America, and are not defined as lawful combatants under the Geneva Convention (Art 4) or the US Law of Land Warfare based on those conventions and US Code?
And WHAT freedoms have we given up since 2001?
I’m sorry, where in the Constitution does it say “the government shall not…unless it’s against a non-citizen. Then whatever”? And when done right, waterboarding may not have any lasting effects, although I’d disagree. When not done perfectly, death is a very real possibility. But, I can argue this with you on either a pragmatic or a moral basis. I prefer moral, because we are Americans, and we should not stoop so low. By the way, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin made no bones about it. He wanted to decide if waterboarding was torture, so he had it done to himself, and decided it was torture.
You want pragmatic? How’s this. Torture gives lousy intelligence, because the prisoner will say anything you want to hear to make you stop. The fact that we torture makes our boys over there less safe. Throughout history, we have been known as a people above that, and opposing armies would surrender rather than fight to the last man.
And can you seriously, with a straight face, ask what freedoms we’ve given up since 2001? Shall I give you a list? Amendment one: freedom of speech. Here in my hometown, a man was arrested and beaten up for daring to hold an anti-Iraq War sign when Vice President Cheney was around.
Amendment four: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The President not only admits to breaking that one, but has bragged about it.
Fifth amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…if, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Gosh, that sounds a lot like secret prisons where people disappear to for no reason.
Sixth amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…” Kind of goes with the fifth there. How do you know the people in Guantanamo are terrorists? How do you know they’re not Americans? This is what oversight is for.
Eighth amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Like, you know, torturing people.
And I understand that there is a hole in Manhattan. I have been there. I have seen it. The United States Government had all the information they needed to stop that from happening and failed to. I don’t believe I should give up my rights. And if you want to, I suggest you move to China or someplace that doesn’t have that guarantee of freedom.
How to respond to that load of distortions?
First:
Preamble:
“We the People of the United States”
No section of the Constitution declares that People NOT of the United States, especially those who declare war/hostile action against the United States have equal rights to citizens of the United States. In fact, I do not think it is addressed at all.
Second, I am of “our boys” and we in the Military do not use these techniques. In fact congress was fully notified of these techniques years ago and the same high horses who attack the CIA for doing it (maybe 3 times BTW, and only when all else failed) approved of it then. The CIA has never needed these techniques since and have not used them. Much better ones (like accessing terrorist bank accounts and emptying them in the captured terrorist’s name thus framing him to his fellows) work well. However, the CIA would also have been barred from other lesser techniques such as sensory deprivation with this feel good/bash conservatives as “immoral” bill.
Your “moral high horse” of “waterboarding” is a red herring as it was rarely, if ever used. This vetoed bill, however, restricted the CIA to ONLY those techniques allowed by UCMJ for the military. “Waterboarding” is the extreme of these techniques as stated above but this bill outlawed many others. Thus, please stop with your “have you stopped beating your wife yet” line of “moral reasoning”. If the CIA with their trained interrogators cannot go past what the US Military can do, then why have the CIA?
Next, I suggest you read FM 27-10 (Law of Land Wafare), Chapter 3 on what rights these thugs have.
This is where I went into a long dissertation on the subject.
And no, Constitutional rights do not apply to unlawful combatants. They only apply to LEGAL combatants (defined in Article 4, GC (par. 247) and FM 27-10, Chpt 3, par 61) and ONLY to an extent as these rights are not meant to apply to hostile powers. See the penalty for forgoing at the end of the post I linked.
Ammd 4-6 (or any others) of the US Constitution do not apply to forces hostile to the USA legal combatant or not. The punishment for “forgoing”, mercenaries, or spys (all three can cover Islamic Terrorists or any other foreign terrorist) is death after trial by military commission or general courts martial (not a public trial by jury of their “peers”). If you want these barbarians treated as full US citizens, then we will have to first redefine our entire rules for warfare, declare these thugs citizens of the USA, and then have trials for treason/sedition (Sect 2381 and subsequent sections), murder (Sect 1111 and subsequent), chemical weapons (Section 229), biological weapons (Sect 175), conspiracy (Sect 372 and 373), espionage (Sect 794), nuclear devices (Sect 832), sabotage (sect 2151 and subsequent) terrorism (sect 2331 and subsequent), and others in time of war under Section 18, USC. Most of these carry life sentences and/or death. HOWEVER, one must be a US citizen for most of these laws to apply.
Let me tell you a little secret about these wiretaps you seem to be referring to and so worried about. They apply ONLY to communications coming INTO or OUT of the USA and ONLY apply to communications directed towards enemies of the United States. Example. I kill an AQ member in Iraq and take his cell phone. I give his phone to the S2/G2 (Intel) people and they open his phonebook and access the cell’s history. A number within the USA is listed on the phonebook and several calls have been placed to it. That number is now tracked under FISA if it makes any calls OUTSIDE the USA or receives calls from OUTSIDE the USA. The FBI is also notified of the phone and can issue a standard warrant for phone tapping with the justification of “number found on foreign terrorist phone” for calls WITHIN the USA. This same law applies to drug dealers communicating with wholesalers oversees. If someone within the USA is talking to or emailing terrorists outside the USA it is our government’s duty to find out why they are calling and what they are doing. The same held true for mail,telegraph, and radio messages (old FISA laws) before the advent of cell phones, sat phones, and the internet (covered under the updated FISA laws).
YOU have not given up ANY rights. As for your protester, I have to ask why you cited him and not the dozens of US Military recruiters attacked across the USA by “anti-war”groups. We can add assaults committed against US Services Members within the USA (even our own homes/property) by “anti-war” activists. I also think there is a “rest of the story” part you are leaving out either omitting his other actions, punishments those assaulting him received, or other aspects.
Now for things you stated:
First, what is your definition of ‘torture’? Is confining, forcing Islamic terrorists to interact with females (non-sexually, i.e. be asked questions by), isolation, being yelled at, kept awake, or forced to listen to music “torture”? If so, then I have to wonder what you expect us to do. Read some of the many reports from GITMO available from Congress on their daily events/attacks on guards by prisoners and tell me how saying “please” would make these barbarians tell us their secrets. Some of the methods outlined were used by the Clinton Administration against US CITIZENS in the cases of WACO, Gonzales, and others. Was it ok in the 90s against Americans but not ok now against non-legal combatants seeking our deaths? Or is it ok when leftists are in power only?
Second. What references do you give for “torture” not producing results? I honestly want to know because all I see for references on this are leftist sources (though not leftists in power as the Soviets, now Russians, and Chinese LOVE REAL torture and still employ it).
Third, the US used to do worse, but changed a lot of our techniques from WWII on. Would you like us to go back to how we fought WWII without CIA specialists and have what would now be considered multiple severe violations of the current GC and US Code? Or maybe back to the US Civil War which was worse? Your view of history may be a little off on this.
Forth, regular soldiers in real armies are legal/protected POWs and not subject to any non-military restricted techniques. Islamonazi terrorists are not legal combatants, target civilians, regularly violate all laws of warfare, and their leaders who we are after rarely surrender as they are on a mission from ‘god’. You are comparing apples to oranges here.
Well. After a brilliant and learned slap-down like that, Chris, I think you’ve pretty much closed the book on this topic. Perhaps someone in the future will post a story about serial killers and Geiiga might decide to come to their defense as well.
Seriously though, your comments are so effective because they highlight how liberals like to stand up for rights they don’t understand and which sometimes don’t exist at all. This is a trap you fall into when your first and strongest impulse is to blame America first, last and most.
Left-wing sources like Col. Steven Kleinman, USAF, whose resume includes “senior intelligence officer” and “military interrogator?” Let’s go back a little further, shall we? How about two hundred and thirty years?
“In 1776,” wrote historian David Hackett Fischer in “Washington’s Crossing,” “American leaders believed it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements … was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution.”
During the Battle of Trenton, the colonial army took about a thousand prisoners of war. Washington wrote: “Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road.”
So, your torture position being historically unamerican, let’s go ahead and look at your wiretapping argument. You say that these illegal wiretaps “apply ONLY to communications coming INTO or OUT of the USA and ONLY apply to communications directed towards enemies of the United States.”
Prove it. If that was the case, there was a setup in place already where they could get warrants from a secret court and there’s no way in hell any judge is going to take a situation like you’ve set up and deny a warrant. And you can’t even argue that they don’t have time for that, and need to start tapping immediately, because the law allows them to get a warrant retroactively.
Oh, and by the way, that program started in April of 2001. So I’ll argue effectiveness with you. Our intelligence analysts are trying to find a needle in a haystack. You really think that dumping more hay on them is going to help?
Oh, and Nocomme, show me where I blamed America for anything. There are a number of situations where America is to blame, and I say we can do better, but I’m going to stand on my belief that the Founding Fathers created the greatest system of government that has ever existed. Where do you stand?
Geiiga,
First Rebuttal:
The USAF officer is bound by UCMJ, the CIA is not for a reason (and if you want them to be, then why have them around?) and as I stated, congress approved of the techniques under extreme circumstances only; after all else had failed; and when immanent threats to the nation were clearly ready to materialize (as was the case with KSM). Congress also observed these very few interrogations in action by their own admission and records. Only AFTER it became a political knife did the Democrats start with the “this is torture” holier than thou red herring. These techniques are not used on legitimate POWs and IF used on illegal combatants, are only used, as disclosed to congress as part of their oversight responsibilities, under extreme circumstances.
Now for GEN Washington’s remarks. NO GENEVA CONVENTIONS existed at this time and he was referring to LEGITIMATE, uniformed soldiers fighting in accordance to rules of the time. The islamofascist thugs ARE NOT and DO NOT qualify. So again, apples and oranges. Legally, these barbarians can be tried via military commission and shot and that is “due process”. Instead we treat them better than American citizens and illegal immigrants in US supermax prisons. This is documented also by congress and the International Red Cross. We also release some of them only to find many of those engaging in the same terrorism they did before and either recapture them or kill them. Usually this is after we have had to bury a few of our own or help bury civilians they have killed (who morally speaks for them?). These thugs commit these acts after they were cared for and treated VERY well in un-secret “secret” prisons. This is also after they were tried by commissions and released. So please stop your moronic holier than thou crap.
Going back to the founding of our nation which you seem to believe we evil conservatives in the military and civilian life somehow hate, if you read about how the ideological ancestors to the current islamofascist threat, the Barbary Coast Pirates (and pirates in general), were responded to you would see how our Founding Fathers dealt with the threat. At first, without a standing military, the US was almost powerless and was meek before the Amir of the “pirates” (who called themselves the “mujahadin”… Sound familiar?). After that failed and thousands of civilian merchantmen were taken hostage, we established the USMC and a full Navy to combat them. “Piracy” is about the only thing close to “terrorism” or “illegal combatant” we have today. And yes, there are still pirates out there and yes, our Navy and USMC still fights them and no, pirates are not legal combatants. In WWII, the closet thing to modern terrorists were shot as spies and saboteurs.
To answer your last statement, I support and defend “We the People of the United States” against “all threats foreign and domestic”. THAT is where I stand and have devoted my entire adult life to.
Now for the wiretapping. First, FISA IS that “secret court” you spoke of and was inadequate in dealing with modern technology as its rules were written decades ago. The new FISA laws, which are the bi-partisan Patriot Act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/) were instituted AFTER 9-11-01. Those FISA laws are in lapse now thanks to congress (who thinks it is better to investigate baseball on vice charges). Please provide the source for the April 2001 FISA amendment as I can not seem to locate that.
We have on this site noted that in the spring and summer of 2001, the US picked up a huge increase in terrorist ‘chatter’ but lack of HUMMIT and knowledge of what AQ’s targets were, along with the fact some intercepted coms indicated attacks again overseas (as had been the pattern barring the first WTC attack in 1993) indicated planes MAY be hyjacked but military targets and overseas targets were more likely. Military targets may have been next on the list as Bin Laden’s “all your base are belong to us” speech indicated. It was enough to get us to seal our bases (as they are now) and yes, I think our bases WERE next from being OIC of our base’s guard force’s train up and anti-terrorism officer at the time. However, these warrants are all pre-Patriot Act.
So you are talking about THE SAME THING I am. You proved my point that we already did this and you seem not to have a problem with it.
As for supporting “torture”, I do not. However, I still ask what your definition is. This topic formed hours of debate among my CGSC class. I personally prefer coercion as in the “empty bank account in captive’s name and threaten to release that information to his ‘friends’ or other such blackmail. With all the corruption and theft common in Arab, Pashdun, and Persian societies, this is a very easy way to make the captive reliant on us for his safety. Is that outlawed by your “morals” also?
However, even as well treated as 99% of our prisoners are, when released, many go right back to attacking us. So now, tell me, since you are this beyond holy moral person, why should I risk the lives of my fellow Soldiers and Marines and my own life to take (or retake) these barbarians alive? Why should I have to deal with false flag surrenders (BTW, that equals “forgoing”), booby-trapped bodies, explosive vests, rigged (explosive) houses, using kids as unwilling bombs, and all the other aspects of trying to take these illegal combatants captive when nothing useful will come from interrogating them and imprisoning them gives the terrorist more rights than our last two Marines facing charges for the set-up at Haditha? Why should we give rights explicitly denied by the GC and US Law of Land Warfare to these thugs who will skin my Soldiers and I alive and fight to the death no matter HOW we treat them?
We already do, I am just asking why.
Goo Goo said:
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Funny how the self loathing libs will deny the very real nature of the threat of Islamic Jihadist and trumpet the phony issue of a threat to civil liberties.
How many foiled plots have their been in the U.S. since the 9/11 attacks? You going to say that they were ALL fakes?
And you suggest I should not be taken seriously?
If we lived in a police state as your comments suggest you would have been hauled off a long time ago.
And had President Bush not succeeded in foiling all those plots you and your self loathing lib buddies would be leading the charge demanding his impeachment. Oh that’s right… you’re doing that already.
He’s saved your worthless lives and this is the thanks he gets.
Nonphysical coercion of the type you describe I fully support. And I’m not saying it’s not a fine line and that there are difficult choices to be made, but I do say that there are some absolutes and that defense of the abominable comes at the expense of what I referred to as this country’s soul.
I was apparently off by two months when I said April of 2001. That was the best of my recollection. This is from the trial of Joseph Nacchio, which is a truly sordid tale. On February 27, 2001 the NSA approached Mr. Nacchio. Shortly after he declined their offer, the NSA pulled a several-hundred-million dollar contract that was enough to offset the negative reports Nacchio had about the stock. He sold some of his stock prior to those contracts being pulled, and then was prosecuted for insider trading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html
As far as the Library Tower plot goes, since Bush himself didn’t know the name of the tower when he said it, calling it the “liberty tower” and at other times “the tallest building in Los Angeles.” Roger Cressey, formerly the National Security Council’s staff director on counterterrorism suggested that the plot be put alongside “What if Superman worked with the Nazis” and “What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub.” Of course, there’s also the Miami Al Qaeda branch, whose funding was entirely provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Or Kevin James and his gang, most of whom were imprisoned for armed robbery before managing to actually commit any acts of terrorism.
Or how about the plan to use a binary liquid as you might have seen in the movie Die Hard: With a Vengeance to blow up an airliner? Turns out that’s a difficult bomb to make in laboratory conditions, and absolutely impossible to make on an airliner. Yet still, a year and a half after that one was debunked, I can’t take a soda onto a plane.
I’m not saying that the plots were necessarily fake, I’m just saying if the incompetence with which they were attempted is indicative of the current state of terrorism in the world (which, given the fact that no more credible success stories have been forthcoming seems to be the case) that we can go ahead and mark the war on terror the very first win ever in a war on a vague concept.
Yeah, you’re right… those incompetent Arabs could never pull off a major attack in the U.S. now could they?
It just happens that Khalid Sheik Mohammed who planned 9/11 was the chief plotter for flying a plane into the Library Tower.
If you want to live in a delusional world where you ignore the very real threats around you while you hide from reality by puffing yourself full of righteous indignation over phony and false issues relating to the people who are trying to save your worthless life that’s your right.
But it doesn’t make you any less a fool.
P.S. It’s also called the U.S. Bank Tower and the First Interstate World Center. And President Bush has used the correct name on numerous occasions. Too bad your evident hatred of him has clouded what little judgement you have.
I’m saying they got lucky once due to what amounts to a total failure on every front, mostly by the administration. Given that the military had tabs on several of the hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, in Able Danger, given that they had a security memo entitled “Bin Laden determined to attack in US” (which, according to Al Gore, is a far more alarming title than any delivered during his time as VP), given that the administration has claimed so many powers for the executive branch in the name of security while ignoring the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, I’m actually amazed that none of these half-cocked plans actually worked.
Of course, that’s only half the story. The other half is that America has been so fully under the specter of fear for the last six and a half years that another attack is wholly unnecessary, and as long as we stayed on the ball in Afghanistan we managed to keep bin Laden and friends scattered enough that they were unable to coordinate any new efforts. That faded after a new, sexier war with someone who posed no direct threat to us whatsoever came along, and the aftermath of that has allowed the Taliban back into power.
It’s not just that invading Iraq could have, from the word go, been called “bumbling.” It’s not even that it was illegal both under the UN charter and the bill authorizing the use of force. It’s that we’ve spent a lot of money that we didn’t have hunting an enemy that wasn’t there and now we’re stuck in it. And in the meantime the enemy is regrouping in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, while we create a new enemy in Iraq and are trying very hard to start something new in Iran, which is, despite everything that’s gone on there for the last fifty-some years, one of the most pro-American countries in the region.
I harbor no hatred for President Bush. Hell, I voted for the guy. He seems like the kind of guy I’d like a lot if I met him socially. But if it’s easier for you to think I’m some kind of radical left-wing Marxist revolutionary, go with that. The truth is I’m a regular guy from Kansas who’s tired of leaders who appeal to our fears.
“Several U.S. intelligence officials played down the relative importance of the alleged plot and attributed the timing of Bush’s speech to politics. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to publicly criticize the White House, said there is deep disagreement within the intelligence community over the seriousness of the Library Tower scheme and whether it was ever much more than talk,” according to the Washington Post, on February 10, 2006. As with Iraq, the only intelligence that matters is what agrees with the President.
Oh yeah, you’re a Bush lover! Surrrreeee!
Friends of Valerie Plame no doubt. Love those anonymous sources! It’s probably the same bunch who can’t make up their minds whether Iran is a building a nuke or not.
Your mindset is the same mentality that caused the Clinton Administration to view the 1993 World Trade Center Attack as solely a criminal matter. And you would actively block all the tools necessary to prevent another attack citing your phony civil liberty concerns.
Dismissing the intentions and capabilites of these terrorist monsters smacks of racism and is also foolhardy. It’s only by a combination of dumb luck, dogged persistance and a comprehensive geo-strategy that we’ve been so successful in stopping them.
Had those attacks using liquid explosive in baby milk bottles on jets over the Atlantic from Britain succeeded thousands would be dead and no doubt people like you would be demanding that Bush be held accountable. Yet terrorist monitoring made more difficult by phonies in Congress prevented that atrocity.
Of course if Hillary or Obama gets elected and guts our national security apparatus, we may just miss the tell tale signs that prevent another attack. Then, I expect the same Greek Tragic Chorus of enablers to rise up and say “it’s not their fault. it’s Bush’s fault.”
The sad truth at that time will be that the civil liberties of perhaps thousands of Americans will have been lost forever because of the phony arguments made by your crew.
Again, you fail to understand the difference between rational fears like the very real threat of terrorism and irriational fears like the unfounded, phony accusations of infringement on civil liberties. Ask Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl their opinion on the subject… Oh, that’s right, you can’t…they’re dead!
How many times did you burn your hand on the stove before you learned the difference between real and imaginary danger?
Geiiga,
If Al Gore is saying that the Aug01 pdb had a more threatening content than any other re UBL, then he’s lying, and the 911 Commission proves it by including the 12/4/98 PDB (maybe Vice Presidents don’t see PRESIDENTIAL Daily Briefs?).
I did like the part about Able Danger since we now know from that very investigation that the Clinton Administration had multiple intel tracks showing that Iraq was directly involved in the USS Cole bombing (various Clinton Admin officials confirm this as well), but what you’re assuming (and one should never assume lest it makes an…) is that somehow VP Cheney and/or the President knew enough about the 911 plot and deliberately chose to do nothing. Multiple independent and bi-partisan investigations have shown that to simply not be the case. They knew something was up, and they had lots of specific intel, but too much. If they’d have protected against every specific threat, the US would be in total lockdown even today, and political opponents would be claiming it was a political trick not a real threat.
I submit that your “fear” mantra is misplaced. We’ve been told about threats from Al Queda, from Iraq, from Islamic terrorists in general, and more for years. The Bush Admin has actually tossed out LESS fear-mongering than previous administrations. Recall that fear from what might happen now that the cold war has ended in the Bush sr years, or the bi-annual wars from the Clinton admin (Iraq, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Kosovo, yada yada yada). Instead, I submit that the greater fear mongering comes from the left which makes it sound like 1) presentation and acknowledgment of world crisis’ is a new and unique thing to the Bush Admin 2) the Bush Admin is some all-knowing evil imperialist cabal out to take over the world by controlling oil and terrorizing a nation (all while the man himself can’t read a teleprompter to save his life) 3) the rhetoric that sums up to be “if only a Democrat were there [insert angels singing in background], then things would be better.”
Oh, and getting back to Al Gore…he also vowed that from 1998 on…there should be NO more diplomacy at all with Iraq. Bush tried it for over 2yrs.
I’d love to address your false claim about the war being illegal, but until you can confirm that you’ve read UN resolution 1483 section 1-4…’till then you’re just mislead. Dare to ask yourself who misled you and why?
Speaking of PDBs:
Bush had 33 days to act on the information he received August 6, 2001. 778 days passed between the time President Clinton recieved the above warning and the time he left office.
What did Clinton do to protect the American people?
That’s the one I was talking about Mike. Well done. And…what action did President Clinton take? He bombed Iraq a week and a half later.
Torture is wrong. To practice itis wrong. To justify it based on TV movies like “24” is wrong and stupid.
I have seen picutres of buildings that Conservatgives claim were saved. I want to see the proof, from people independent of the torturers backing those claims up.
I want to see proof that some Conservative-inspired Jack Bauer is not going to torture people who had no knowledge, based on rumours and encourage ment from Conservatives to ‘torture as you please: because it works n TV.
Conservatives here have posted quotes from Bill Clinton saying what the circumstances where even he wold have allowed torture. They always omit the accountabilty part (Conservatives always omit accountability, especially when it appies to them or their allies).
That is what I want to see, but have received nothing but typical Conservative venom and insults. But then that appears to be the only way Conservatives can communicate, via hate and screams. When I see reasoned discourse, then I will engage, othewise I will expect the usual stream of invective that defines both this, and most other Conservative forums.
Here is my response.
I also take A LOT of issue with the “bumbling” line of pure BS. I also take issue with your misconceptions about the enemy “not being there”. They were. Saddam may not have loved AQ, but he was working with them.
As for your statement of “And in the meantime the enemy is regrouping in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, while we create a new enemy in Iraq and are trying very hard to start something new in Iran, which is, despite everything that’s gone on there for the last fifty-some years, one of the most pro-American countries in the region”
First: AQ in Afganistan is suffering defeat after defeat and dealing with one of the coldest winters in history for the area. Their “regrouping” consisted of bombing civilains (and making MORE enemies), supporting drug dealers for cash, and conducting frontal attacks on FOBs in the open (and being gunned down). In pakistan, the Pak armed forces are now forced to fight them and are taking the fight into the mountains (something never done in Pakistan before).
Second: Iran a “pro-US” country????? Achmenajad, the mullahs, and Hezbollah must have missed that in their daily calls for the destruction of America. I must have missed that when we found Iranian 50 CAL sniper rifles in Bagdad that Iran bought from Austria in 2007. We must have missed that all through the 1980s and 1990s also. Finally, there is that little mess with our embassy when the Shaw was deposed. Now, IF you mean Iran BEFORE the Islamic theo-dictatorship took over, then you might be correct, but not Iran AFTER.
The Iranian People want to be free, but are disarmed and under close watch by the Iranian internal security. I’d love to go free them, but then I would also love to end slavery in Sudan, the Islamic Courts in Somolia, piracy in the Straits of Malaka and Somolia, free North Korea from the evil “Kim Dynasty” and many others.
Now if you get your information ONLY from the media, I can see how you have been misled. However, your memory is shallow if you forget the true fear mongering in the 90s that led to the “Assault Weapon’s Ban”, attacks and unwarranted actions against so-called right winged “militias” (noticed that they dissapeared in 2000?), illegal use of FBI/IRS files/audits on Clinton political opponents, the “need” for domestic electronic intercepts (echelon) which the NYTs thought was a great idea under Clinton, and many others.
This decade, we have protests allowed all over, even though they declare their support openly for the terrorists and call for the deaths of US Soldiers. They can even protest IN congress. Some “police state”…..
Philadelphia Steve,
Again we have receive nothing from you but typical hate and projectionism directed at conservatives. Enough with the idiotic “24” references. I have never even watched the damn show and have NO idea what you are talking about. I am to busy dealing in reality. You want “independent”? Read Mike’s references to the PDB above.
As for accountability, congress stated they oversaw these VERY few interrogations and approved of the measures.
That still does not make it right.
It’s not right, but sometimes you have no other choice.
Re: “It’s not right, but sometimes you have no other choice.”
Especially in the movies and Conservative fantasy situations.
Again, let me make a prediction. One of the days, some Jack Bauer-wannab, will decide to torture some civilians who “a contact’ declared “knew something”. These people will turn out to be children or other innocents and this information will become public, just like Abu Graibe.
From that point on, Osama bin laden (still free, of course) will be turning recruits away for want of room to fit them in. America will be fully classed along with Saudi Arabia as a torture advocate.
And Conservatives, who love to hold Liberals to account for the actions of people who are “inspired” by Liberal commentary, wiss disavow any personal accountability for what they have said here, because personal accountability is anathama to Conservatives, always.
There are certain standards that a country stands for. Once upon a time torture was one of them for America. We might excuse extreme conduct in crisis situatins. But those crises had Darned-well better be real and provable to one and all.
Now Conservatives want to torture on rumours, innuendo and stray comments, just as long as a “cover story” is available.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12300
Steve,
Ok, you topped the asinine statement!
For the last damn time, stop with the moronic, infantile “24” references. The only one propagating that BS is YOU!!!!!!!!!
And for the rest of your idiocy, THESE EXTREME MEASURES WERE ONLY USED ON MAYBE 3 CASES AND ONLY AFTER ALL OTHER METHODS HAD FAILED AND ONLY AFTER COMPELLING EVIDENCE INDICATED AN IMMANENT THREAT OF ATTACK.
Congress was informed through oversight briefings and gave permission. Congress also witnessed some of the interrogations and had no problems with them until certain members of congress thought to use them as a knife in the back. Accountability was maintained and these seldom used tactics were employed as a last resort, not the first course of action. At no time would this fantasy you have of “torturing children” EVER be used as Children (A) are “protected persons” under the CG and US Law of Land Warfare and (B) require caring and love to defeat these fascists we fight.
You, on the other hand, have some delusional fanatasy where “evil conservatives in the Military (which with voting patterns would be 92-95% of us) and the CIA” love to hurt children and gleefully torture anyone and everyone.
Get some help before your paranoia makes you go postal!!!!!!!!
NO ONE advocates what your fragile grasp of reality calls ‘torture’ as the first, second, third or for most cases last resort. Your desperate need to vilify conservatives so that you can have some sort of made up enemy is disgusting and indicitive of serious mental issues.
Honestly, I do not care what your family thinks of you or what you think of them. I do not care if someone beat you up on the playground and you need ‘revenge’. Do not come here and project your delusional, paranoid fantasies on us.
If those standards that you describe were the only standards for torturing prisoners, then I would be moved to change my stance.
However.
I have had many years of the Bush Administration revealing only sufficient information to make their case, and the Conservative media filtering it for Bush-favorable spin.
My point is, and remains, that torture is wrong, and we darned-well better be able to justify it. And speeches from Conervative thought-leaders such as Spectator magazine will, in my opinion, lead to the renegade actions that will take decades to repair. Conservatives pretend these things will never happen because they declare they don’t want them to happen. That is the Ivory Tower Conservative philosophy that may exist in the “we create our own reality” White house, but leads to strings of disasters.
Your unwillingness to even acknowledge that such “bad apple” actions can ever take place, or admit what a terrible price the US would pay if (when) they do happen, indicates that you too are living in a fantasy world where “torture works”. That is why I cite the TV movie “24”, because it is just as fanciful, but taken as reality, as my reference to Spectator indicated.
But, neither you, nor any other Conservative, will ever admit that not everything goes perfectly according to your Ivory Tower Plans. Not every Blackwater contractor will hold back until the need is “ironclad”. Becasue you say so.
P.S. Spectator is a civilian magazine. And I would trust the military to follow the Uniform Code. However recall that the Bush Administration wanted everyone else: The CIA, Blackwater contractors, exempt. The world will not make those “nice” distinctions when they judge America. To pretend otherwise is to live in the White Hose Bubble of word parsing.
P.P.S. You have just promised me that torture of “non-evil” people will NEVER HAPPEN. Is that an absolute promise? If, someday, it is revealed that innocents were tortured, would you admit you were wrong? I admitted in my opening sentense that I would change my mind if your standards were guaranteed to always be met. If my nightmare scenario came to pass, would you change?
Of course not. You are a Conservative. You can never change, nor can you ever be wrong. We would just hear a string of alibis as to why you “can’t be held accountable because….”
Along with more streams of venom against those of us who warned you of the risk
Steve,
You are truly a paranoid projectionist unworthy of much “debate”. Your “conservative this” and Conservative that” diatrabe is moronic and wrong. Again, your “debate” style, if not based in wild fantasies, is akin to “so when did you stop beating your wife”.
What do your masters feed you to come up with this crap?
IF someone is wrongfully treated as a protected person or POW, THEN those who mistreated that person must face trial under applicable regulations and laws.
In fact, they have. So the “guarantee” is that IF something is done wrong, the defendents are investigated and if guilty, punished.
No.
My further question was,
“Regardless of the punishment that is meted out to those at the lowest level who perpetrated torture, if torture of innocents did occur in the climate of “torture is OK” that Spectator Magazine promulgates, would you admit that the damage to the image of the United States as standing for something slightly above that of the torturers of the world (Saudi Arabia) would be massive and take decades to repair?”
That is my question. I made a prediction as to your answer. Go ahead and prove me wrong by answering it.
Again, the question is posed as a “when did you stop beating your wife” logical fallacy. “Torture is ok” as your source defines it ignores the aspect that it is not a normal aspect of interrogation and NOT for protected persons and legal POWs and must be done ONLY after all other methods are exhausted and under authority and supervision of over watch agencies (i.e. congress and the executive branches) and ONLY when clear and pressing evidence is given of impending actions. You make it sound like the CIA just does this for fun and as a matter of routine.
Why should I answer a slanted and loaded question which only presents part of an issue and ignores the legal and procedural regulations and safeguards?
I predict you will somehow think this vindicates your holier than thou ‘predictions’ and feeds more into your ‘conservative this/that” BS.
Re: “Why should I answer a slanted and loaded question which only presents part of an issue and ignores the legal and procedural regulations and safeguards?”
Because pointing to all the rulebooks will not matter one bit when some budding Jack Bauer decides to save the world with an American Flag patch on his shoulder. And Osama bn Laden will have another grand recruiting poster.
Steve,
How does one answer an illogical question based on your “Jack Bauer” fictional scenario?
The rules and laws exist to enforce standards, help ensure your paranoid fiction does not become a reality, and punish any who try to make it a reality. Why even have the UCMJ, Laws of Land Warfare, ethics, or laws at all if Soldiers “with an American Flag patch on his shoulder” are going to do it anyways according to your assertion? What is the point of rules and regulations or laws in general then? Why even have civilian laws if reality follows the logical fallacy you posed?
As for Bin Laden, or any of his dwindling number of henchmen and wannabes, using your fiction as a “recruiting poster”: These barbarians do not need real actions for their “posters”. If they cannot photo-shop or cherry pick something to twist for their goals, they simply make it up. Numerous examples exist of these actions by them. No matter WHAT we do, they will always have recuiting posters claiming we eat kids, drink blood, rape women, that our NVGs see through clothes, that we dance with demons, etc. What they do not show is that we punish those who break the rules why their side turns their own demons into ‘martys’.
People in Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Algeria and other places) are slowly awakening to AQ’s (and the Shia’s also) lies and manipulations. Enforcing standards and regulations combats exactly what your fiction portrays happening.
Good for him! Waterboarding is much nicer than what I would inflict on these animals…
“Jack Bauer”
Obsess much?