Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 05:46am PT
|
In this thread, we learn about how media makes the most sensational headlines, not the most factually accurate ones. Also, that Skipt doesn't read that far beyond the headline.
Thanks Karl for reminding us that it pays to actually read articles, in case actual facts lie inside.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 08:55am PT
|
hmmmm...so obama "REDACTED" the memo from his own dni before releasing it to the press? why would he do that? perhaps for "political factors"? maybe revealing the fact that waterboarding "yielded high value information" would make the situation too politically complicated...what would the american people do (those same people who elected him president) if they knew all the facts? an honest discussion on waterboarding requires we have ALL the facts...and, again, this is an opportunity for opponents to show their courage by demanding that waterboarding be outlawed DESPITE the fact that it saved lives--maybe thousands of lives
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 09:18am PT
|
Worst terrorist attack in US history happened with Republicans in control of all three branches of government, 9/11/2001.
Little Moron Shrub was warned "attack is highely likely".
Informed "The country is under attack", he continues for a full seven minutes reading a book upside down to Florida children.
What does it say about YOU, that YOU voted TWICE to put that MORON in the White House.
It says YOU ARE A F*#KING MORON.
DEAL WITH IT.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 10:15am PT
|
Redacting intelligence info is common. BFD.
I still find it appalling that Americans are defending torture. Shame on y'all. Cowards are people who give up their principles at the first sign of threat.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 10:49am PT
|
i'm amazed, norton, that you think so highly of george bush that you assume he could have prevented an attack after being in office only 8 months even though bill clinton could not prevent the attack despite having the previous 8 YEARS to do something about it...but let's see if i understand your logic...bush gets blamed for 9/11 after only 8 months, but all criticism of obama is unfair because he's only been in office for 3 months?
yes, dirt, i know redaction is "common", so why was there a whole hollywood movie made about W's redaction?
dirt, i also understand your revulsion to torture...which is why i like this article:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTRhM2E2MTE0NjQ3MzYwNWM2ODJjMTgwNWQwMmVkYzc=
ok, i commend your stance...even if your own family was in imminent danger or even if you were certain that a terrorist group was going to detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of a major city or even just fly another fully loaded passenger jet into another crowded office building, and you had one of the conspirators in custody and were convinced he had information that could prevent such massive loss of life, you would still refuse to waterboard him...i think you're one of the few, dirt, but i won't call you a moron or a fascist or a loser or anything else, i just won't vote for you if you ever run for president
|
|
UncleDoug
climber
No. Lake Tahoe, CA
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 10:54am PT
|
"Cowardice is better described as those that allow innocent people to die because they think their own mistaken moral values are more important."
EXACTLY!!!!!
Now practice what you preach!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 10:58am PT
|
"ok, i commend your stance...even if your own family was in imminent danger or even if you were certain that a terrorist group was going to detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of a major city or even just fly another fully loaded passenger jet into another crowded office building, and you had one of the conspirators in custody and were convinced he had information that could prevent such massive loss of life, you would still refuse to waterboard him...i think you're one of the few, dirt, but i won't call you a moron or a fascist or a loser or anything else, i just won't vote for you if you ever run for president "
You've been watching too much 24.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 11:23am PT
|
Bookworm, you are delusional to compare apples to oranges.
News flash, there has NOT been a terrorist attack while Obama has been President. There WAS the worst attack while little moron Shrub was President.
Flash: 9/11 did NOT happen on Clinton's watch.
You can't accept any truth so you twist everything wrong with your ignorant Republican Party to somehow be the fault of Clinton.
I agree with what someone said a few days ago about you.
You used to post here in a somewhat rational thought process.
Those days are gone now while you melt into irrational hate for all things Democratic, Progressive, Liberal, whatever.
You are blinded by your hate.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 12:56pm PT
|
"You've been watching too much 24"
dirt, does that mean i overestimate your conviction?
norton, clinton had 8 years and plenty of opportunity to catch/kill obl and prevent 9/11...i'm not blaming clinton for 9/11, which was more a result of our approach to terrorism (as a law enforcement issue, which means wait for the bad guys to do something bad then try to catch them with enough evidence to prosecute them)...but look at all the attacks that DID occur on clinton's watch...by your logic if obama hasn't captured/killed obl by september 11, we can blame him for the next attack...of course, you won't blame W for any attacks that occur on obama's watch
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 12:59pm PT
|
You overestimate the danger.
|
|
the Fet
Supercaliyosemistic climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 01:27pm PT
|
Torture is evil. Spin it all you want: it's not torture, it's justified, the enemy does worse, etc.
You folks supporting toture are supporting evil. Plain and simple.
*Innocent* people have been tortured by our govt., if you are not appalled by that you... are deluding yourself at best.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 02:14pm PT
|
"You overestimate the danger"
clearly, i'm being hypothetical
but why won't you answer the question? it seems fairly simple to me: you oppose torture; you think waterboarding is torture; you oppose waterboarding in ANY situation, correct?
same question to you, fet
|
|
the Fet
Supercaliyosemistic climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 03:05pm PT
|
Yes Fattrad, I know, I still bear the psychological scars from that Republican convention.
Booworm I'll answer your question if you answer this one first. Are you happy the mastermind of 9/11 was tortured 183 times?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 03:32pm PT
|
BW wrote
"but why won't you answer the question? it seems fairly simple to me: you oppose torture; you think waterboarding is torture; you oppose waterboarding in ANY situation, correct? "
Look, in that one in 50 years possibility something is truly immanent, a decision can be made to cross the line and pay later for it. That's always been the case. Official policy is way different.
And dude, those guys in Iraq were invaded by us and were under great threat. It would be just as reasonable for them to torture anybody they capture too eh?
Isn't this one of the main reason we decided Saddam was evil and needed to be taken down?
Guess not, since we supported him when he was doing it.
Hypocrisy is otherwise known as foreign policy. Let's make America what it claims to be for a change.
Peace
Karl
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 03:38pm PT
|
"but why won't you answer the question? it seems fairly simple to me: you oppose torture; you think waterboarding is torture; you oppose waterboarding in ANY situation, correct? "
YES!
Look, either we believe in freedom and the Constitution or we don't. Total security and freedom are mortal enemies. You can not have one without compromising the other. We accept the risk that thousands of people die every year and many more gravely injured to protect the freedom to allow everyone to drive 60 mph. We accept the risk that thousands of people are injured or killed by guns every year to protect the right to bear arms. We accept the risk that law enforcement officers might not catch the bad guys all the time for the freedom to not have cops search our persons, property and homes at their whim.
Freedom means accepting that sometimes bad people will do bad things, and for the protection of our freedom that our government will not always have the power to stop them. A hell of a lot more people die every year to protecting our freedom to act like idiots than die to a lack of government authority to act to protect us from terrorism.
Skipt- If it's cowardice to say that I am willing to risk the injury or death of my family and friends for the assurance that without probable cause and judicial oversight your home will not be raided, you will not be jailed without charge and that the government will not decide to torture you, then paint me yellow.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 08:02pm PT
|
great, dirt, i do admire the strength of your conviction; however, your analogy about the speed limit is ridiculous...and what good is our constitution if we have no country? the bad guys want to destroy us, and they do not play by any rules (not even their own)
by the way, how do you feel about W's orders to shoot down any jets that did not respond on 9/11? would you have approved the deliberate killing of hundreds of civilians because their plane MIGHT HAVE been in the control of more highjackers?
karl, you seem to suggest that 9/11 was just another plane crash...even obama's dni emphasizes the context (scroll up to find the exact quote; i posted it three times)...EVERYBODY thought more attacks were imminent, and the many attacks in other parts of the world are proof that the bad guys have not given up...say what you will about W but nobody can deny that he did whatever he could to prevent another 9/11...the declassified memos clearly show that W wanted to employ every means possible WITHIN THE LAW--why else would he consult doj and olc?--to stop a very dangerous and determined enemy and the old law enforcement tactics were no longer adequate (and never were)...did W test the boundaries of executive power? of course, name a president who didn't...but also note that every time W lost in court, the policies were changed to come into compliance...
lincoln had no "legal" right to emancipate the slaves (which, of course, he didn't really); he dismissed habeas corpus; and he had deserters shot; oh, he also invaded a sovereign nation...i'm sure glad he did all those things
in the battle of the bulge, american soldiers executed german prisoners because guarding them would have hampered their ability to fight and repel a vigorous german counter-attack; their commanders looked the other way...context matters
fet, yes...and knowing what the information he had access to, i would have poured the water up his nose myself...another question: what interrogation techniques are acceptable for a terrorist mastermind?
here's a liberal's perspective on the consequences of obama's "transperancy":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042102969.html
|
|
Bill
climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2009 - 09:43pm PT
|
We can talk about hypothetical ticking time bomb scenarios all you want, but how often has that happened? Ever? We'll probably never know, because it's all classified. But it doesn't seen that these people were tortured in this scenario - 183 times over a month? Must have been one long fuse on that bomb. The fact is, these people were most likely tortured in fishing expeditions.
Tell you what - in a real situation where innocents will die, and someone in custody is withholding information that will prevent it, that person will be tortured. That's just how it goes; hell, I'd do it myself. The individual makes the decision to break the rules, and his superiors cover it up - not pretty, but that's how it goes. Making torture national policy is another thing entirely.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!