« More Tea Party Inspiration | Main | Democrat Stimulus Happy Dance »

You infidels have lost!

Our servant is now your President and we have the keys to the kingdom! Bow before us and our king as your President has done.

ya think that that kid will actually read anything??

Awesome!
One of the great satisfactions in life is seeing pretentious, ignorant, talking- points- spouting, ultra- liberal buffoons get completely PWNED by a woman who is clearly their moral and intellectual superior!

He has been taught to read what he should read. Anything that goes against what I believe has been rendered useless. HAAAA You can't appeal to reason, logic or knowledge. We control the past and therefore we control the future.

Allahu Akbar!

PS Your president was kind of a slow student in our Indonesian Madrasah, so what if Trid is smarter than barry, Trid isn't President. Ha! die infidel pigs, die!

Hey Van, thanks for the Video...it was good to hear common sense spoken without hesitation or teleprompters.

The trolls are making crappier posts every day.

When President 45 enters office, he should announce that future enemy combatants will be housed and fed in conditions equivalent to what our own troops experience in the field, and that our interrogation methods will be no more harsh than what an American military man can expect in the course of his training.
Imagine a never ending first year at West Point combined with the physical aspects of astronaut training. Not only will the jihadis probably crack within a few weeks, but they'll probably think we're some sort of 21st century Spartan

I am also encouraged to note that whatever is in the water at State Dept seems to wear off. Perhaps replacing the plumbing would reverse the ninety+ year tendency of State to backstab the Executive?

"Do your homework."

TOTAL SMACK DOWN! That little moonbat douche got his ass handed to him. F-U you sniveling little POS; sit in the corner and lick your wounds.

Good job Dr. Rice.

AWESOME. This should lead on Hannity and Drudge. This was like that DON'T TAZE ME BRO video, only Condi Tazed this Alinsky koolaid drinker with her rapier mind. This is so good I can't believe I haven't seen it on other sites. I will link to it whereever I can because it should not be overlooked.

This could be the first black female president.

Yo Muslim.....your time will come sooner than you think. Your kind are being slaughtered like the PIGS that you are. Locked and Loaded!!! Burn in hell murderous Muslim.

Oh yea Fuck your God to swine trolling muslim.

o.t. - anybody hear about jack kemp dying?

Posted by: Watching at May 2, 2009 7:27 PM

Relax folks, just satire troll(s) passing on through me thinks.

sad brainwashed college kids

Has torture become standard practice for the Republican party? How can torturing people to death be considered ethical (assuming ethical behavior is a goal of our country)? Please don't give me the ticking bomb story. The techniques were evaluated and "justified" (Bybee) well in advance and conducted repeatedly over long periods of time.
A true Conservative would be appalled. Apparently Republicans aren't.

Maybe after the next attack and untold numbers are left incinerated like a backyard barbecue gone horribly wrong this kid might feel a bit different. That is unless he is one of the smoldering dead.

But I'm willing to bet that if he does survive he will be the first to complain, whine and ask why wasn't anything done to stop it.

Vote for a ultra liberal demacrat and you end up with a communists dictator

When faced with terrorist attacks leading to raging fires
some report that 200 Americans were faced with the terrible decision
seen here. Our current President is making policy that forgets what
these people faced. Both the victims of 9/11, and the Government that had to pick up the pieces, had hard choices. We all expected another attack.

By flying through NYC at a low altitude our New Government shows just how out of touch, and
forgetful they really are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y56IZVnC8RU&feature=related

Hmmm, praising a former White House Secretary of State for conspiracy, and violation of the 8th Amendment of the Constitution? Seems a little Un-American to me. Anyway, professing that we are the greatest country on earth requires adhering to the laws set forth, if we do not define ourselves any different than what is the point of all of this? We have picked kids in Bosnia and cab drivers in Kuwait by accepting false information resulting of torture, purchasing names from tortured prisoners, yeah that possesses real American values. Let me ask, if American contractors are beheaded in the midst of war, and with a number detainees, guilty and not guilty equal a number of 150+ deaths in American custody...what separates us? Having some grand Jack Bauer illusion is not a viable position to have in reality. It may be helpful to some of you to go back and study the verdicts of the Nuremberg trials, and notice the number of those put to death for violations. To quote a Fox host, brace yourself because this rarely will happen..."This America God damnit! We do not Torture!"

I think one of the ongoing arguments are whether these "enhanced interrogations" were torture or were they not. If they were not and if they were within the law, it's a closed case and job well done.
There seems to be an adamant claim of legitimacy and justification from the Bush administration while constantly invoking the atrocity of 9/11. This somewhat dodges the enhanced vrs torture question. It appears to be saying something like "yeah, it's legal, but even if it wasn't, we were justified because national security comes first". I suppose that has some merit but it seems that
"enhanced interrogations or torture" supporters seem to want to have it both ways. There seems to be an outcry from many on the far right to not even ask the question.

Again, if it's legal, fine. If not, at what point or what degree can 1 branch of government step in and ignore the law?

Andy, I see your point,however, if the likes of John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Alberto Gonzales manipulate memos to make it appear everything done was is the confines of the law there needs to be an "enhanced" investigation. I don't if members of both parties go down for this because they all took an oath to defend the Constitution. The crimes here are serious on so many different levels. And so many of the defenders of it seem to think "Yeah but this one time in 24..." Please! Further, I found it interesting that Pew Research poll it is Christians who are in favor of torture. Wasn't Jesus tortured to death?

Well, Condi has put herself into this kind of crap on a daily basis now that she is at Stanford.

Ghost of Wellstone poses grand designs from the safety of his keyboard not actually having to do any of the dirty work necessary to keep him safe as he spouts lofty classroom rancor.

Our present administration headed by the Great Obamanation is breaking laws and shredding the constitution at this very moment, but you are unwilling to attack him because he is your useful idiot.

Instead you champion the enemy, who I might add attacked us first. You might consider that there would not even be allegations of torture if the enemy would have refrained from murdering 3000 innocent people.

Open your eyes so they may reveal the real enemy and stop attacking those who attempt to keep us safe.

Lord C, understandably your response was to Ghost but it does pertain to my post. I'll concede that I'm not thrilled with what I'm seeing with our current leadership but that's another story. I fail to see any justification in insinuating that because Obama's shredding the constitution, it's fine that Bush did it then. Are we never to bring up investigation of Obama since investigating Bush seems to lean towards "champion the enemy"? Would such investigations be contingent if we felt he was keeping the country safe or not?

You seem to shy from the legalities of the torture issues and lean towards the concept that it was ok by invoking "murdering 3000 innocent people". Are you saying that perhaps it changed fro illegal to legal as a result of the atrocities of 9/11? Somewhere down the road, historians will conclude a binary on/off decision of it being interrogation or torture.

Oh Lord..."champion the enemy", give me a break. You can go on and on about "it kept us safe", but ignoring the laws and given values of being an American enables the former Admin to get away with criminal acts, the current one to violate laws as you allege, and future ones to act with the same disdain. And furthermore, if you were to actually study the reasons for the 9/11 attacks you would see that actions that Middle Eastern Governments as well as the U.S. participated in business deals that was perceived as crimes against the people of their respective countries. 9/11 was a horrific day, and no American should ever forget it. That said, we should also recognize what the reasons were behind it. It is not some lousy talking point that they hate us for our freedoms. Many of you seem to think that bin Laden was in some cave bitching about the Bill of Rights or angry that a woman was in some Lexus commercial.

Furthering the damage done by allowing the acts of torture to go without investigation, says we're ok with it.

Andy - Too often I see worshipers of Obama hold Bush up as some kind of shield to deflect criticism of Obama. Bush did it so any activity Obama conceives must be OK.

If you and others want their pound of flesh for hates sake just be prepared to accept all the unexpected consequences that will follow.

Ghost of Wellstone - You have been well programmed by your torture encounter group. Too bad, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Hillarious when zit-faced kids try to look so tough speaking "truth to power"!

I don't 100 % disagree with Andy's point about, basically, pick one already - was it legal or 9/11-justified. That said ....

It's amazing to me that the torture groupies who are living, breathing, sleeping, and eating this torture story don't realize how much they are being used as tools by the Obama Administration right now to accomplish specific political purposes that have nothing to do with the torture story. In the end Obama will throw the whole 'torture' meme under the bus; it will have served its purpose, and the huge festering crowd of people who've gotten themselves all worked up will have to go find another obsession - and will duly be provided a new one by Obama and team.

To be a tool and not even know it pathetic.

"harrycat at May 3, 2009 6:34 AM"

Please name the prisoner that was "tortured to death" while in American custody. MUSLIMS torture people to death with stoning (Amoung other techniques) as a matter of course; it's their STANDARD OPERATING PROCIEDURES.

Poor kid went into a battle of wits armed only with memorized headlines and parroting what he had learned from really smart guys like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart against someone with actual working involvement in the issue. Like watching a pit bull maul a poodle.

I particularly liked how she wasn't going to let him use the dishonest technique of evasion when his weak presumptuous statement is met with a request to valid his assertions.

A great demonstration of the difference between a grown adolescent and a matures adult.

"Torture Groupies"?Clear headed Americans were against torture prior to President Obama had decided to run. Many Republicans and Conservatives will admit that Bush was a half-wit, but run cover for him and the rest of the criminals when it comes to actual law. Torture and allowing criminals to get away with the aforementioned crime is the standard you wish set?

Lord C, I think you're spinning the Obama/Bush blame game the wrong way. I'm not acquiescence to one party. As mentioned, I'm not thrilled with the Obama agenda. However, I'm not targeting a party or even a person. My issues focus on the actions of a person or a particular topic associated with that person. In this case, we're talking about the definition of torture, it's legality, and the justification. I'm kind of a cut and dry guy. Either it was legal or it wasn't. If it wasn't, was it justified considering the circumstances? Are investigations warranted and why or why not? It's not unpatriotic for inquiring minds to ask.

Mega, historically, I don't see the torture issue going away. You may have a point in it being politically advantageous but I see it more as Obama seizing the moment rather creating an opportunity. Time will tell.

Gosh, I need a roll of toilet paper (none of your beeswax how much post-consumer content) next to my PC to try and wipe off all the troll excrement 'round here. I don't agree with Condi being a stooge for pandering to the Philistine Authority, nevertheless, she is a brilliant, well-educated person that I sometimes wish would have run for President.

Andy- I agree with you in that each person is responsible for his own actions and holding up another as justification to get away with something is a poor substitute for truth or character.

As for torture, all methods of extracting information was approved and sanctioned as legal by a series of lawyers. Lawyers, that should be the first clue that something has gone terribly wrong with the way we fight wars.

We can waste time and speculate about what is or isn't torture, but in the meantime our enemy is continuing it's plans to wipe us from the face of the earth. A few days after a well placed nuclear strike will make you scream for torture - real torture.

It's time to decide what is important and what is for show.

imagine that you are a terrorist about to be caught by the USA.
you are given 2 choices - Obama or Bush - who do you choise??????

Obama's way - bang you dead, enjoy your 72 virgins!!!

Bush's way - captured (& the USA bends over backwards to capture, not kill you), cleaned up, sent to a brand new detention facility, given private quarters, fed good food that costs more per day that the what the American solders guarding you get, freedom to worship, clean clothes, recreational facilities, a trial with defense council provided (that is until Obama stopped the trials) & a chance to be found innocent & let go so that you can continue with your terrorism, yet subjected to interrogation using methods that the USA uses to train it's armed forces (yes we waterboard some of our soldiers & sailors as they are being trained)with doctors observing to protect your life, etc.

OK pick one - Obama or Bush

& remember that if you the terrorist captured a American you did not offer a choice, you just cut off his head.

you know why it took Obama 3 days to authorize the killing of the 3 pirates?

He wanted to make sure that none of them were relatives

I pick Obama's way - i am tied of humping camels, bring on my 72 virgins

Thanks for posting this video

I think the question goes a tad deeper than to say that a group of White House Lawyers saying so makes it so. You seem to be saying that it was the right thing to do because it was legal but even if it wasn't, it was still the right thing to do. You want it both ways. That sounds more like blind party loyalty than anything else.

You act as though this is the sole threat America has faced. When the Constitution was written in 1787, we faced both Britain and France with the power, had they decided to focus on the United States, of strangling this country in the crib. They could have wiped us out. And we had a great man about to become president, George Washington. And with George Washington about to assume the presidency, and two countries ready to wipe us out if they so chose, the Founding Fathers said we are still going to withhold from the presidency the powers that kings have traditionally held. So that’s why the Constitution is not vague at all. In fact, if you look at the Constitution and I’m sure you do, it even includes giving the Congress authority over treatment of prisoners, which people here seem to have forgotten. After Pearl Harbor, we executed Japanese that waterboarded our POWs. Now, "a group of lawyers" says it's ok. The Geneva Convention is explicit. It seems that we have a hard time distinguishing right and wrong.

Despite my left tendencies, I try to be partisan. The lack of checks and balances in conducting this war on fear is appalling. The threat of attack does not give a president the right to become a dictator and abandon the constitution that he referred to as "a goddamn piece of paper".

andy sez "The threat of attack does not give a president the right to become a dictator and abandon the constitution that he referred to as "a goddamn piece of paper"."

so when Obama wacked the 3 privates without giving them the chance to surrender & be tried in a court, his moral position was what??

according to your statement, the 3 pirates had constitutional rights that Obama abandoned....

Andy - you cannot have it bothways

Blue, you jest right? We were not at war per se with a country, this was a hostage situation, and the pirates were not in captive. In fact, this was a rescue circumstance. I would say nice try but that would be a blatant lie. It's a shame that I'm challenged and have to waste my time with such non sequitur garbage. Of course, had I not, I guess I would have been smacked down?

Andy writes, "After Pearl Harbor, we executed Japanese that waterboarded our POWs. Now, "a group of lawyers" says it's ok. The Geneva Convention is explicit. It seems that we have a hard time distinguishing right and wrong."

If ONLY all the Japanese had done was "waterboarded" P.O.Ws (American, British, et al)....

No, the Japanese shot, beat, burned, beheaded, conducted medical experiments on, and cannibalized P.O.Ws.

They didn't treat civilians (particularly pregnant women)and anybody else that got in the way any better.

"Waterboarding" is a coercive technique, but I would hardly call it "torture", particularly when performed with close supervision and a doctor in attendance.

When the Japanese marched into China and murdered a quarter of a million people "in retaliation" for Jimmy Doolittle's bombing raid in April of 1942, I seriously doubt they submitted the plan for "legal review" first.

Oh, and Andy....while you're brushing up on your history, look up the Bataan Death March:

From Wiki:

"....The march, involving the forcible transfer of 75,000 American and Filipino prisoners of war[1] captured by the Japanese in the Philippines from the Bataan peninsula to prison camps, was characterized by wide-ranging physical abuse and murder, and resulted in very high fatalities inflicted upon the prisoners and civilians along the route by the armed forces of the Empire of Japan. Beheadings, cut throats and casual shootings were the more common and merciful actions — compared to bayonet stabbings, rapes, disembowelments, numerous rifle butt beatings and a deliberate refusal to allow the prisoners food or water while keeping them continually marching for nearly a week (for the slowest survivors) in tropical heat. Falling down, unable to continue moving was tantamount to a death sentence, as was any degree of protest or expression of displeasure."

Do you still think the Japanese were charged with war crimes for "Waterboarding"?

Just a few comments Tony. If it says it on Wiki, it's gotta be true right? Water boarding constituted as a capital offense and as war crimes, regardless of any other charges. You may "hardly" call it torture but we called it torture when done to us. It was defined as torture then as well as in the Geneva Convention. What changed and why? Why is it that rebuttals must bring out these other atrocities as if they're relevant to this issue. Fear mongering doesn't address the issue.

Paul Wellstone enthusiastically supported requests for military action by President Clinton in Somalia,in Haiti,in Bosnia and Herzegovina,IN IRAQ and in Yugoslavia. He changed to the party line on same-sex marriages when it got hot.
This is definitely his ghost. Hair splitting justifications, diversionary arguments, affected humor at other opinions, exasperation that no-one is listening to him.

It was quite the oposite. Condi could not justify what she did. "If the president does it then it is not illegal" is the ghost of Richard Nixon.

Torture is not part of American democratic ideals. It goes against everything we stand for. Period.

Andy, it is done as a training technique to our soldiers. Why is everyone railing about it being used on the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaida, but not on American soldiers?

gaffers, training our soldiers to withstand torture is not an excuse to torture.

The thing I don't get with the Left is: doing some really bad stuff behind the scenes has been part of intelligence and counter-intelligence operations for THOUSANDS of years. Not only that, heads will be crushed in basement dungeons under Obama, too. Not only that, it's probably going on right now, today. It is just the nature of the beast. It is neither just, nor moral, nor legal. It just is. Nations face exigencies that require real ugliness once in a while. From the Sumerians to the Belgians and everyone in between. The self-righteous, sainty, moral absolutist preening Left is being ridiculous on this matter.

Now, Bush did not handle this well. It should've been done more quietly with less acquiescence to "human rights" groupies who grabbed onto it and used it for the political purpose of destroying Bush. It should've been done in basements in Amman and Paris, rather than on US-controlled soil. But the mistake was in letting it get out, not in doing it.

Meanwhile, the moralistic preening Left will quickly discover that there is ugly stuff involved in national protection, whether under Bush or Obama or anyone else.

When I see the Left on a continuing mission of vengeance to destroy Bush, all I can think is, "You won, guys. Stop being such a sore winner."

Water boarding constituted as a capital offense and as war crimes, regardless of any other charges.
~ andy42302

Source? Who exactly was executed for using the same technique as that of our interrogators? That technique would have been extremely mild in comparison with the torture that World War Two Japanese solders used. Source, andy42302.

andy,

I think we're going to have to start off with common ground.

Surely we can both agree that malicious torture for the simple sake of inflicting grotesque pain on someone is, well, disgusting. Right? When a prisoner of war is subjected to heinous activities for what amounts to enjoyment, that is a face of evil, in my opinion.

I could argue that the Geneva Conventions are off topic here for the simple fact that only signatories are held to them, besides the fact that a group of ideologous can hardly ratify a treaty. Perhaps what you really mean is that you'd like to see the United States hold itself to the Geneva Conventions regardless of the nature of the military engagement, and regardless of who it's with.

That's very noble, but impractical in that it disregards reality. Let's say, for the sake of the Geneva Convention argument, that we were in a similar engagement with, say, Sweden. Let's say they had some of their staunchest citizenry pack themselves with explosives, smuggle themselves into the country, and blow themselves up in major metropolitan areas. Let's say they were kidnapping our citizens and sawing their heads off on television as messages to us. Let's say they hijacked 747's and crashed them into buildings. Let's be fair in our assessment, and make a fair comparison to the war we're fighting. What would we do, in relation to obeying the Geneva Conventions? andy, we would carpet bomb Sweden into smithereens, mercilessly. I doubt their would be a brick left stacked on another if we were fighting an enemy who attacked our citizens without warning, and on purpose.

Yet that is exactly the enemy we're facing, they just have no borders in this case. They're essentially a collection of cells, all with differing levels of hatred for the United States and its citizens. Suffice it to say, they're all high levels. Even if we were attempting to hold to the Geneva Conventions, certainly their actions have amounted to a breach of contract, and their tactics necessitate it. Hell, even questioning a prisoner of war during wartime is a violation of the treaty. Anything beyond name, rank, and serial number that is. What's your rank, sir. Under-jihadi Class IV? Please.

Let's face it, we've never fought a battle like this. Extreme measures are absolutely required. But let's be reasonable. Let's compare brutal beheadings, kidnappings, and deliberate attempts to kill American citizens, with caterpillars, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding. Let's even compare the goals. On one hand, we have armed combatants sawing people's heads off, just to threaten and terrorize. On the other hand we have simulated drowning to garner information to help protect those same citizens.

It's a no-brainer, really. You can yell about torture until you're blue in the face, but it will fall on deaf ears in my case. I'd say we've shown an abundance of restraint in that we haven't given the Afghani and Pakistani governments the same ultimatum: take care of this, immediately, or you will be missing several large mountain ranges in the morning. Our government has an outright duty to protect its citizens, and that ultimately trumps any treaty, any global governing body, and any other country's sovereignty. End of story.

So back to our common ground, in which I hope we can both agree that torture, in the sense of heinous application of pure anguish and unending pain, is reprehensible. That's why I, for one, am glad that the United States is not sponsoring any such thing while attempting to defend itself from the same.

To all the sanctimonious posters: did you have a loved one die on 9/11? do you know anyone that jumped to their death, rather than burn alive in jet fuel? THAT IS TORTURE. grow the f**k up and BE AMERICAN- stand up FOR America, not against her. Everyone is so quick to act so holy and perfect. Judging another's actions is soooo easy; why don't you try for just ONE MINUTE to think of how vulnerable we were back in 2001. Liberal pansies. POS president. what fools. I guess shooting teenage pirates in the skull is NOT tortuous? I guess OBAMA THE MURDERER should be brought up on charges, too, as murder is not in the Constitution.

Wouldn't a more prudent course of action be:

a) acknowledge that techniques of interrogation were used that fit the criteria of "torture".

b) condemn the acts, but not the people who did them, as they were acts of "going too far" motivated by a desire to protect Americans rather than malicious acts undertaken for no other purpose than to inflict pain.

c) announce that such actions will not be employed from this moment forward by US govt. personnel, whether they be military or non-military, and that those who perform such acts in the future will be held accountable.

???

Wouldn't the above give Obama the "moral high ground" over Bush that he craves while allowing the nation and the war against those seeking to destroy it to move on? Wouldn't it prevent future "torture" while at the same time prevent a time-, energy-, and money-consuming crusade to destroy anyone remotely responsible for past acts, which would cause huge divisions in the country and pit the military and CIA against their own government?

And yes, I would advocate this line of action if it were a Republican president following a Democratic one. I believe it possible to declare an action mistaken or misguided, and discontinuing such actions, without feeling the need to destroy those responsible. They were misguided and went too far. Make sure they stop, and let it go.

so what if they really need to use these methods??? (I am not admitting that they are "torture")

example: a nuke is set to go off in NYC & they have the guy who planted it in custody & asking him pretty please, where is the bomb? doesn't work

would you let us waterbaord him??
or would you let the nuke go off, to have "the high moral ground"?

blue:

I'll answer your rather stupid question with more intelligent ones:

Does conjuring an extreme example of an exception to a rule elevate that rare exception into the rule?

Wouldn't you agree that Obama's posturing on this issue is more about winning political points with his constituency than about the moral and tactical questions of torture/enhanced interrogation techniques?

Don't you think that if Obama followed the course of action I outlined above, it would have much better long-term consequences than his hinting of large, divisive, and - in the end - counterproductive witch hunts?

I agree that Obama posturing on this is and it's all about political points.

I disagree with a), b), & c) of your course of action

an example is an example & you did not answer my question - so I'll make it a little more generic for you - would waterboarding be OK in a life or death situation??
please answer yes or no

"Does conjuring an extreme example of an exception to a rule elevate that rare exception into the rule? " asks Andy....

YES, we are saying that in extreme situations extreme acts may be needed to save innocent lives....no one here has advocated using waterbaording to get a jaywalker to confess.. but using it to save lives is a different situation

so answer Blue's question, in a extreme situation should the USA use all means necessary to save lives, or should the USA take the "high moral ground" and let innocent civilians die??

it's a simple question....what say you??

Keven R, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/

There was also Yukio Asano who was sentenced to 15 years for waterboarding.

Mega, I find it a tad audacious to say something to the effect that you know it's illegal but since everyone probably does it anyway, lay off Bush. I remember hearing that same argument on watergate, "they've been doing it for years". Ditto for Clinton lying about Lewinski. No one's above the law and if you get caught, that's no excuse. Mega, I'm not on a mission against Bush. I do thank God every day that he's no longer in power. However, there are abject failures that should never happen again. These mistakes need to come out. I personally think that historians will forever think Bush should have been impeached but again, I'm just glad he's gone.

Cowlove, it all falls back to becoming a lawless nation or perhaps having a dictator. Instead of recognizing 3 branches of government, Bush took it upon himself to torture, wiretap and other questionable moves.

Perhaps you feel that it's ok to disregard the Constitution under certain circumstances. I just happen to think that's a pretty slippery slope.
Of course, we all know how Bush felt about the Constitution.

Andy, methinks that after Obama's first major terrorism incident, you will be praying to God to bring Bush back

well maybe not, you may be among those glowing in the dark.....

& oh by the way Bush briefed congress (including Pelosi, Hillary & the democrats on his plans to "torture, wiretap & other questionable moves"

at the time, they agreed

andy said "I'm not on a mission against Bush. I do thank God every day that he's no longer in power."

now thats is newsworthy, a liberal thanking GOD!!!!!!!!

blue/eat me, I'm not much into hypothetical but here's what i asked in my 1st post- "Again, if it's legal, fine. If not, at what point or what degree can 1 branch of government step in and ignore the law?"

Your scenario has merit. Bush's War On Fear however was a government of abject failures running amok. There's a vast difference. Additionally, Bush had ample opportunity to abide by the Constitution and work with Congress but chose not to. This is assuming that the enhanced interrogation was legally torture. That's something you guys seem to be having a hard time distinguishing.

eat me says "& oh by the way Bush briefed congress (including Pelosi, Hillary & the democrats on his plans to torture, wiretap & other questionable moves"

Care to give a link or two?

I mean, Bush said verbatim "we don't torture".

Condi should have pointed at his nose and screamed racist. She should have told him that there was no possible way in the universe as he knows it and describes it that she as a black woman could be wrong.

Of course, being a talented, educated, woman with experience and knowledge Condi fell back on rational discussion. But, the only language a guy like that understands is much different than logic, irrefutable fact, law as defined by the Constitution, and a series of points made by an excellent and trained mind.

andy - you still have not answered the question - can waterboarding be used to save lives?? or should we let innocent people die in order to claim the high moral ground?

w

Cowlove, it all falls back to becoming a lawless nation or perhaps having a dictator. Instead of recognizing 3 branches of government, Bush took it upon himself to torture, wiretap and other questionable moves.

I'm sure you and a lot of other people could question many of Bush's moves, but is that really your intent here? For someone who just earlier was espousing his desire to remain non-partisan as a noble goal, it's odd for you to take the discussion decidedly partisan at the earliest possible convenience.

Perhaps you feel that it's ok to disregard the Constitution under certain circumstances. I just happen to think that's a pretty slippery slope.

I don't see the Constitutional aspects of interrogation being readily apparent here. Perhaps you could argue the Constitutional nature of treaties amongst sovereign nations, but we've already determined that there is no sovereign nation for us to enter into agreement with here. That, coupled with the unconventional battle that's being waged makes the point moot.

Ranking members of the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee obviously knew of our interrogation techniques and either explicitly or tacitly approved of them, seeing as they're an oversight group. Even Pelosi has admitted knowledge of our information gathering long before it was politically beneficial to bring it to light, and she's not even in the Senate, much less on the oversight committee.

If the argument is adherence to the Geneva Conventions, then there is no intelligence gathering technique that is even permitted. If the argument is adherence to some Constitutional principle, I need a citation so I can examine it myself.

As it is, our government has the paramount responsibility of protecting United States citizens.

Jeesh, Andy my apologies, I had hours of yardwork to do,apparently I missed alot. As I expected, Andy, and a few Anonymous posters come with logic, and the usuals here come with the same tired talking points. The defense of torture is so weak these days, and even weaker to try and bring in the Somali Pirates, talk about a stretch. See ya all tomorrow, I am beat.

Andy42302 writes,

"Just a few comments Tony. If it says it on Wiki, it's gotta be true right? Water boarding constituted as a capital offense and as war crimes, regardless of any other charges. You may "hardly" call it torture but we called it torture when done to us. It was defined as torture then as well as in the Geneva Convention. What changed and why? Why is it that rebuttals must bring out these other atrocities as if they're relevant to this issue. Fear mongering doesn't address the issue."

1) While it's true Wiki has it's problems, in this case exactly what are you saying ISN'T true?

2) Waterbaoding is a capital offense? WTF?

3) I "hardly" call it torture because it does no permanent harm, and we do it to some of our own troops in training.

4) WHEN did we ever "call it torture when it was done to us?" You also claim we executed people for this.

5) It is "defined as torture in the Geneva Convention"? Which Geneva Conention? What article? When?

6) Fear Mongering? Comparing what the Japanese did (which YOU brought up)to waterboarding and putting a caterpillar into someone's cell is fear mongering?

As cowlove said, we all agree that sadistically brutalizing someone for punishment or for the sheer h#ll of it is not acceptable - but that's not what we're talking about here.

Keven R, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/

There was also Yukio Asano who was sentenced to 15 years for waterboarding.
~ andy42302

That doesn't back up your claim that Japanese soldiers were executed for using the same techniques as our interrogators. I've heard that the water based technique used by the Japanese was actually where they would pour salt water down a person's throat until the stomach was distended (very painful in and of itself) and then hit or jump up and down on the stomach.

Fmr. Sec. Rice is coming to Statesboro in September - I'm so stoked I can hardly believe it! I'm going to ask her her opinion of the republican party vs conservative movement now vs 20 years ago & also what she thinks of Tea Partiers. :D

& to the people who are saying things like "torture to death" blah blah - no one died from a bug in their box or waterboarding...it is unpleasant - but so is having to explain to a family their son or daughter was slaughtered by extremists to make a point to the world.

When I think of torture, I think of physical pain - from what I can tell, no physical pain was ever administered. & If mind torture is a concern, well, obviously you don't watch L O S T at all - cuz that's a mind "screw" every week & it doesn't save ANY American lives.

I see the trolls here are continuing the lie that we executed Japanese POWs after the war for waterboarding. We executed SEVEN Officials after the war mostly for crimes against civilians ie the Rape of Nanking and Manilia where tens of thousands of women and children were tortured and raped on orders from the Japanese Imperial Army. The death toll in these two incidents alone was over 100 thousand, mostly civilians.

The three officers executed for abusing POWS were charged with ordering the beheading, burning alive, stabbing, starving, transporting POWs on ships without displaying the red cross which were sunk (they put red crosses on military transports) and using POWs as slave labor. Tens of Thousands died this way!! If only those poor POWs had only been waterboarded.

One officer was charged with waterboarding, he forced water down the throat and into the stomachs of POWs and hit them in the stomach again and again. Some POWs died this way, ruptured stomachs, but since no deaths could be laid directly at his feet he only got 15 years and no one was ever charged with killing anyone with waterboarding. We never used this procedure against KSM or anyone else as everyone here knows damn well.

eat me

blue:

I would have thought the wording of my follow-up post would have obviated your need to repeat your rather stupid question. Since you didn't seem to catch on, I'll have to spell it out for you.

If it were a "life & death" situation, of course such interrogation techniques are permissible and even necessary. However, taking this rare exception and using it as a blanket defense of such techniques (i.e. making it the rule) is a rather careless and/or dishonest method of reasoning.

Enhanced interrogation techniques are neither morally permissible nor effective in obtaining accurate information when you think the prisoner knows something or if you want to find out if he knows something; it is, however, both morally permissible and effective in obtaining accurate information when there is eminent danger of loss of life and you know (i.e. have strong, clear corroborating evidence) that the prisoner knows something.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of instances in the released CIA memos and the Red Cross report of that far more resemble the former use of EIT than the latter.

Unlike many on the right, I have no desire to try to justify them. Unlike many on the left, I feel no need, as I tried to make clear in my original comment, to prosecute those who have used these techniques in non-"ticking clock" situations in the past. Just move on.

GeronimoRumplestiltskin - if as you say waterboarding is OK some of the time, who decides??

I for one would want it to be the President of the USA - who has all the known facts, even the classified ones..and is in the best position to make the decisions needed to defend our country and protect us...after all that's the presidents job

hindsight 8 years later is not the way to make judgments

Folks on the left still want to bring Bush to trial? Oh, bring it. The Anchoress pointed out the folly of that years ago. Such a trial would be of double historical importance. It would put it all on the record where it could be found wanting and the dems complicit (her view), and it would be the "this is where the Republic suffered its fatal wound" moment (my view). Who could risk leaving office if they risked indictment by partisan hacks?

"I for one would want it to be the President of the USA - who has all the known facts, even the classified ones..and is in the best position to make the decisions needed to defend our country and protect us...after all that's the presidents job"

Does that also include our present president Blue? Can he too decide how to interpret the constitution, just cause he's smarter than you,,,,or our founding fathers?

the constitution does not mention waterboarding; it does charge the President with the defense of the USA against foreign enemies

I could beat Obama on Jeopardy

blue:

As for your first paragraph, I think I outlined rather clearly in my last comment the conditions under which torture would be permissible. Go back and read it again if you have questions.

As for your second paragraph, I had no idea that President Bush enjoyed a status of infallibility far surpassing even that accorded to the Chair of St. Peter. Does Obama now have this charism? (Dear God, I hope not) Or is it possible that President Bush, Congress, the CIA, and/or military personnel may have crossed some ethical lines in their prosecution of the war? If so, is it not the duty of a morally serious person to discern what they may be so that future decisions may be informed by that discernment?

As for
"hindsight 8 years later is not the way to make judgments"

This is precisely why I don't advocate punishment or reprisals for those who advocated or performed such techniques in the past, and precisely why you don't see me casting aspersions on the characters of those involved. To paraphrase a common statement, war - and make no mistake about it, the U.S. is at war - is a series of mistakes leading to victory, and I am more than willing to cut some slack to those who may have crossed ethical lines while doing their best to defend the US. However, just as there is no virtue in pretending that mistakes weren't mistakes, there is no virtue in justifying torture in situations that do not meet the criteria I outlined in my previous comment. That you continue to ignore this distinction does not make you a better American or a better conservative, but a morally thoughtless partisan shill who has as little to offer this discussion as the nitwits trying to exploit this issue into a prosecution of Bush.