Ever Seen a Complete Mismatch of Intellects?

[Kelly the Dog]

I wonder how fast all these whining morons would STFU if there was another terrorist attack in the US?

 

Well, they do seem to attack us here every eight years.

[drnykterstein]

Though Pelosi didn't know anything about water boarding when she didn't know when she knew, what she said that she didn't know, what she didn't know when she knew and therefore dindt know when she knew.

 

I don't know why you can't get this through your thick skull, as it's been said a million times. NOBODY is going to defend Nancy Pelosi. No one. What part of nobody do you not understand?

Every intelligent person I know wants her out of office. Attack her all you want, but just get it through your empty skull that I am on your side with every attack you throw against her. I want her gone from public office as much as I want republican dirtbags like Richard Shelby and John Boehner gone. They are all just foul corruption that poisons our society.

[erynthered]

I don't know why you can't get this through your thick skull, as it's been said a million times. NOBODY is going to defend Nancy Pelosi. No one. What part of nobody do you not understand?

Every intelligent person I know wants her out of office. Attack her all you want, but just get it through your empty skull that I am on your side with every attack you throw against her. I want her gone from public office as much as I want republican dirtbags like Richard Shelby and John Boehner gone. They are all just foul corruption that poisons our society.

 

regardless of what you say, you're still full of shiit an uninformed. Though continue, cause your posts are freakin funny as all get out

[Booster4324]

I don't know why you can't get this through your thick skull, as it's been said a million times. NOBODY is going to defend Nancy Pelosi. No one. What part of nobody do you not understand?

Every intelligent person I know wants her out of office. Attack her all you want, but just get it through your empty skull that I am on your side with every attack you throw against her. I want her gone from public office as much as I want republican dirtbags like Richard Shelby and John Boehner gone. They are all just foul corruption that poisons our society.

 

Still just 3 scumbags huh?

[drnykterstein]

Heh, well you know... lot more than that. The list is so long that it might bring down SDS's servers if I posted it. Don't want to do that.

[Alaska Darin]

I wonder how fast all these whining morons would STFU if there was another terrorist attack in the US?

They'd still be whining and you guys would still be defending the very rationale that all but guarantees continued terrorist attacks. Life goes on.

 

Blowback, it's what's for dinner.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

I remember as a little kid in Catholic school the nuns told us that the Chinese would get us and torture us with Chinese water torture or bamboo under our fingernails until we denied Jesus... It was torture then. I must have missed the ruling that made it not torture.

 

Just because you went to Catholic school, doesn't make you a COMPLETE authority on torture!

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Either way, the law was broken.

 

Or maybe if like McVeigh only killed 3 people, we would have let him off the hook? It was only three people.

 

Could you be more specific as to which law you are referring to?

[IDBillzFan]

They'd still be whining and you guys would still be defending the very rationale that all but guarantees continued terrorist attacks.

Interesting. So I'm curious -- and I don't ask this as a wiseass; I'm genuinely curious of your take on this -- are you saying extended interrogation techniques/waterboarding/torture/whatever contribute to terrorists' desires or motivations to attack the US? If yes, is it as simple as "This just pisses them off more?", or is it something else? If not, I'm curious as to the thinking behind your comment.

[Kelly the Dog]

Interesting. So I'm curious -- and I don't ask this as a wiseass; I'm genuinely curious of your take on this -- are you saying extended interrogation techniques/waterboarding/torture/whatever contribute to terrorists' desires or motivations to attack the US? If yes, is it as simple as "This just pisses them off more?", or is it something else? If not, I'm curious as to the thinking behind your comment.

 

I won't answer for Darin at all, but an enormous recruiting tool for the terrorists across the world is the concept of "America is do as I say, not as I do". So "we tell everyone we don't torture, and yet we torture Muslims", is one of the best things that could happen for the recruiting of young Islamic fundamentalists. Same thing with the Iraq war. "Americans say they are for freedom, and yet, unprovoked, they attack Islamic countries and tell them how to govern." Virtually no one really believes that the Iraq war was to liberate the Iraqi people.

[GG]

I won't answer for Darin at all, but an enormous recruiting tool for the terrorists across the world is the concept of "America is do as I say, not as I do". So "we tell everyone we don't torture, and yet we torture Muslims", is one of the best things that could happen for the recruiting of young Islamic fundamentalists. Same thing with the Iraq war. "Americans say they are for freedom, and yet, unprovoked, they attack Islamic countries and tell them how to govern." Virtually no one really believes that the Iraq war was to liberate the Iraqi people.

 

So if I understand your logic, images of US "torturing" Islamic fundamentalists after they conducted vicious acts against US citizens is a recruiting tool, yet images of US bacchanalian lifestyle that counters Islamic fundamentalists' lifestyles is not a recruiting tool?

 

The US presence in the Mid East is a crack pot excuse used by the Islamic fundamentalists for their battle vs established authorities in Mid East & So Asia. It may sound good to get out of the region, but first you need to define what region you mean, and then you need to define what you mean by "get out."

[Steely Dan]

I agree that it was a mismatch. The MSNBC interviewer smashed Liz into the turf.

 

Liz kicked ass compared to the bimbo. Were there really only 3 people waterboarded?

 

Supposedly, that's what the people involved are saying but a lot of what they've said has been proven to be BS.

 

One guy was water boarded 183 times.

 

Fox News Article

 

Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times

The number of times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded was the focus of major media attention -- and highly misleading.

 

By Joseph Abrams

 

FOXNews.com

 

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

 

A snippet;

 

A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed's face -- not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of "five sessions of ill-treatment."

 

"The water was poured 183 times -- there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds."

 

__________________________________________________

 

So, supposedly, the truth is he was "poured" 183 times during five sessions. I don't understand how that doesn't add up to 183 times of water boarding. Each pour simulates the sense of drowning. Somehow the CIA sees that number as not being accurate because the 183 "pours" were done over five sessions.

 

Figures don't lie but liars can figure. - Mark Twain

 

 

Jeezus. About half way through that I was waiting for the MSNBC chick to say "Dick Cheney's daughter? I thought you said we were getting John McCain's daughter. Dammit!"

 

Meanwhile, GE CEO and presidential consultant Jeffrey Immelt, who owns MSNBC, pulls himself away from a special meeting with Obama and yells 'Can we PLEASE just stick to interviewing Janeane Garafolo? PLEASE! People, I'm trying to get this cap-and-trade deal done with Barry and Daschle. We don't have time to be challenged on stuff. Someone get Olberman a microphone! STAT!"

 

 

 

So you think one of the men responsible for murdering more than 3000 Americans on our soil should get what? A double mocha latte? Pedicure? Or maybe a condo, work visa, union card and part ownership of Chrysler?

 

Nice way to exaggerate a point. So because somebody is against torture they must be for giving them extra special living conditions. Your little diatribe about MSNBC is another way to evade the issue. How about sticking to the facts or don't you understand them enough?

 

 

I get it. Because they "teach" waterboarding techniques in SEAR training it's not torture.

 

Got it Liz. what a ditz.

 

If I shove bamboo under your fingernails ... Is that torture?

 

 

One word. EXECUTED.

Washington Post Article;

 

Some snippets;

 

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

 

_________________________________________________

 

Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding

 

_________________________________________________

 

As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

 

_________________________________________________

 

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

ad_icon

 

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

 

 

I wonder how fast all these whining morons would STFU if there was another terrorist attack in the US?

 

I wonder how soon you'd STFU if our soldiers were water boarded. We need to have the moral leadership in the world to maintain our reputation as moral leaders. JMO

 

It seems that, some, people like you want to proclaim America as the bastion of morality in the world and then think doing things extremely immoral is perfectly fine.

 

Just because you went to Catholic school, doesn't make you a COMPLETE authority on torture!

 

I don't know, I've got friends who went to Catholic Schools and

 

 

Newsweek

 

Some snippets from this four page artilce;

 

‘We Could Have Done This the Right Way’

 

How Ali Soufan, an FBI agent, got Abu Zubaydah to talk without torture.

 

'I've Kept My Mouth Shut': Soufan, last week in Central Park

By Michael Isikoff | NEWSWEEK

Published Apr 25, 2009

From the magazine issue dated May 4, 2009

 

 

Last week Soufan, 37, now a security consultant who spends most of his time in the Middle East, decided to tell the story of his involvement in the Abu Zubaydah interrogations publicly for the first time. In an op-ed in The New York Times and in a series of exclusive interviews with NEWSWEEK, Soufan described how he, together with FBI colleague Steve Gaudin, began the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. They nursed his wounds, gained his confidence and got the terror suspect talking. They extracted crucial intelligence—including the identity of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the architect of 9/11 and the dirty-bomb plot of Jose Padilla—before CIA contractors even began their aggressive tactics.

 

______________________________________________

 

Soufan's assertion was buttressed by Philip Zelikow, the former executive director of the 9/11 Commission, who last week called Soufan "one of the most impressive intelligence agents—from any agency" that the panel encountered.

 

______________________________________________

 

Soufan became a teacher for other interrogators. McFadden says that in early 2002, Soufan flew to Guantánamo to conduct a training course. He gave a powerful talk, preaching the virtues of the FBI's traditional rapport-building techniques. Not only were such methods the most effective, Soufan explained that day, they were critical to maintaining America's image in the Middle East. "The whole world is watching what we do here," Soufan said. "We're going to win or lose this war depending on how we do this." As he made these comments, about half the interrogators in the room—those from the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies—were "nodding their heads" in agreement, recalls McFadden. But the other half— military intelligence officers—sat there "with blank stares. It's like they were thinking, This is bullcrap. Their attitude was, 'You guys are cops; we don't have time for this'."

 

______________________________________________

 

 

But Soufan had poured through the bureau's intelligence files and stunned Abu Zubaydah when he called him "Hani"—the nickname that his mother used for him. Soufan also showed him photos of a number of terror suspects who were high on the bureau's priority list. Abu Zubaydah looked at one of them and said, "That's Mukhtar."

 

_______________________________________________

 

Now it was Soufan who was stunned. The FBI had been trying to determine the identity of a mysterious "Mukhtar," whom bin Laden kept referring to on a tape he made after 9/11. Now Soufan knew: Mukhtar was the man in the photo, terror fugitive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and, as Abu Zubaydah blurted out, " the one behind 9/11."

 

_______________________________________________

 

Soon enough, Abu Zubaydah offered up more information—about the bizarre plans of a jihadist from Puerto Rico to set off a "dirty bomb" inside the country. This information led to Padilla's arrest in Chicago by the FBI in early May.

 

_______________________________________________

[Kelly the Dog]

So if I understand your logic, images of US "torturing" Islamic fundamentalists after they conducted vicious acts against US citizens is a recruiting tool, yet images of US bacchanalian lifestyle that counters Islamic fundamentalists' lifestyles is not a recruiting tool?

 

The US presence in the Mid East is a crack pot excuse used by the Islamic fundamentalists for their battle vs established authorities in Mid East & So Asia. It may sound good to get out of the region, but first you need to define what region you mean, and then you need to define what you mean by "get out."

 

I didn't say the other isn't a recruiting tool or the torture issue is the only one. And I'm sure you knew that. There are several different recruiting tools, another major one of which is the lifestyle you mentioned.

 

I don't think it's a crack pot excuse at all. I think it's a major part of their multi-faceted excuse for doing the bullschit they do, along with the lifestyle and other issues.

 

You may disagree, but I sincerely doubt 9/11 ever would have happened if we had stayed out of the Middle East. That doesn't at all mean we should have completely stayed out (although there are numerous instances where we should have stayed out, it doesn't at all mean we shouldn't protect Israel, it doesn't at all mean we're the bad guy. It does, however, give them a good reason in their minds to attack us and a great recruiting tool to get potential attackers. I think that's pretty inarguable.

[GG]

I wonder how soon you'd STFU if our soldiers were water boarded. We need to have the moral leadership in the world to maintain our reputation as moral leaders. JMO

 

It seems that, some, people like you want to proclaim America as the bastion of morality in the world and then think doing things extremely immoral is perfectly fine.

 

Ahem, no. I think it's fairly well known that if Western soldiers get captured by Al Queda, waterboarding is probably among the kindest treatments they will receive. But feel free that suddenly waterboarding is driving the misunderstood fundamentalists to kill Americans.

 

If you're the graduate of moral equivalence school, what's your rationale for Richard Anderson's throat being sliced by a rusty knife for 1/2 hour? US citizens hanging from a bridge? Daniel Pearl? Shall we go on? All of these were going on even before you knew what the hell waterboarding was.

[GG]

I didn't say the other isn't a recruiting tool or the torture issue is the only one. And I'm sure you knew that. There are several different recruiting tools, another major one of which is the lifestyle you mentioned.

 

I don't think it's a crack pot excuse at all. I think it's a major part of their multi-faceted excuse for doing the bullschit they do, along with the lifestyle and other issues.

 

You may disagree, but I sincerely doubt 9/11 ever would have happened if we had stayed out of the Middle East. That doesn't at all mean we should have completely stayed out (although there are numerous instances where we should have stayed out, it doesn't at all mean we shouldn't protect Israel, it doesn't at all mean we're the bad guy. It does, however, give them a good reason in their minds to attack us and a great recruiting tool to get potential attackers. I think that's pretty inarguable.

 

OK, now that we have established that, what is the realistic solution to accomplish what we need to do while recognizing that you're dealing with a sect who still lives under medieval rules and pines for those times, but possesses modern arms? Sounds like to achieve the solution where everyone is happy is to sacrifice some lives. Which ones are those?

[Kelly the Dog]

OK, now that we have established that, what is the realistic solution to accomplish what we need to do while recognizing that you're dealing with a sect who still lives under medieval rules and pines for those times, but possesses modern arms? Sounds like to achieve the solution where everyone is happy is to sacrifice some lives. Which ones are those?

There clearly isn't a perfect solution, nor an easy one, nor an obvious one. I do know that unprovoked invasions is not a good solution, it's a terrible one, and violently said so here before the war.

 

And I think that torture does more harm than good. I also completely understand the other side on this issue, and it's a very tough choice, with no side being completely right or completely wrong. Personally, I think it's wrong, and it's bad, and I agree with "it's not who we are". We're supposed to be the white hats. To me, torturing makes us the equivalent of the black hats. The problem, obviously, is defining "torture". For now, I personally am willing to go with the Geneva conventions concept and definition. I think there is more evidence that it doesn't work than the evidence that it does. That is very arguable, however.

 

The best way IMO to handle this is the simple speak softly and carry the big stick philosophy, just don't swing the big stick randomly and recklessly. We're never going to wipe out terrorism, people will always hate us and hate other people, and will always conspire to kill some of us. The issue to me is to keep that at as low a number as possible, don't be stupid (excess American presence in the Mid East), don't give them easy reasons to help their recruitment (Iraq war/torture), don't make it easy for them to drive 100 miles with porous borders to kill Americans instead of fly 1000 miles over an ocean with tougher borders to kill us (Iraq War), and try to win as many hearts and minds as you can, knowing full well you can't come close to winning them all.

 

Can't solve the terrorism problem, just try to contain it and not smack the hornet's nest with a stick.

[GG]

There clearly isn't a perfect solution, nor an easy one, nor an obvious one. I do know that unprovoked invasions is not a good solution, it's a terrible one, and violently said so here before the war.

 

And I think that torture does more harm than good. I also completely understand the other side on this issue, and it's a very tough choice, with no side being completely right or completely wrong. Personally, I think it's wrong, and it's bad, and I agree with "it's not who we are". We're supposed to be the white hats. To me, torturing makes us the equivalent of the black hats. The problem, obviously, is defining "torture". For now, I personally am willing to go with the Geneva conventions concept and definition. I think there is more evidence that it doesn't work than the evidence that it does. That is very arguable, however.

 

The best way IMO to handle this is the simple speak softly and carry the big stick philosophy, just don't swing the big stick randomly and recklessly. We're never going to wipe out terrorism, people will always hate us and hate other people, and will always conspire to kill some of us. The issue to me is to keep that at as low a number as possible, don't be stupid (excess American presence in the Mid East), don't give them easy reasons to help their recruitment (Iraq war/torture), don't make it easy for them to drive 100 miles with porous borders to kill Americans instead of fly 1000 miles over an ocean with tougher borders to kill us (Iraq War), and try to win as many hearts and minds as you can, knowing full well you can't come close to winning them all.

 

Can't solve the terrorism problem, just try to contain it and not smack the hornet's nest with a stick.

 

I can't argue with the above premise, and it's very logical when speaking from a historical perspective. Your point will be well served when looking back 20-30 years. But how do you handle the here and now, knowing that there's been a build up to this point for decades?

 

The bigger issue and the concern for the Bush admin and everyone involved in these activities in 2001 & 2002 is that they had to act to restore the equilibrium. I appreciate the Iraq dig, but it's completely irrelevant to the waterboarding discussions which were happening in 2002 and had nothing to do with the war.

 

It's one thing to say that US should speak softly and carry the big stick, but there should be more thought put in place in criticizing when that big stick is being used. Part of the complacency was that the bad guys got complacent that the big stick wouldn't be used.

 

Of all the hand wringing about water boarding, no one brings up a Page 1 story NYT used shortly in the aftermath of 9/11 about possible use of torture against Islamists to make sure we are protected. I recall the conclusion was that no matter how distasteful, we probably would have to resort to the extreme limits of laws on interrogation. I don't recall a huge outcry over that piece in 2001. Funny how minds change in 7 years, when complacency resets.

[Steely Dan]

I wonder how soon you'd STFU if our soldiers were water boarded. We need to have the moral leadership in the world to maintain our reputation as moral leaders. JMO

 

It seems that, some, people like you want to proclaim America as the bastion of morality in the world and then think doing things extremely immoral is perfectly fine.

 

Ahem, no. I think it's fairly well known that if Western soldiers get captured by Al Queda, waterboarding is probably among the kindest treatments they will receive. But feel free that suddenly waterboarding is driving the misunderstood fundamentalists to kill Americans.

 

If you're the graduate of moral equivalence school, what's your rationale for Richard Anderson's throat being sliced by a rusty knife for 1/2 hour? US citizens hanging from a bridge? Daniel Pearl? Shall we go on? All of these were going on even before you knew what the hell waterboarding was.

 

I said that we need to maintain moral leadership in the world if we want to claim that title without regard to how our soldiers are treated. My point is that it seems, to some, that immoral acts against them are justified by immoral acts against us.

 

In fact you're proving my point. You seem to think that an eye for an eye foreign policy shows us to be moral leaders. Trust me, it doesn't. Moral leadership is not stooping to the level of savages it's upholding human rights and the laws that regulate war.

 

If you read my links above you'd see that before 43 got into office water boarding was an offense that LE has been jailed for and would cause courtmartialing in the army.

 

You also would have noticed that after WWII when the Japanese were being tried for war crimes water boarding was one of the crimes they were convicted of. You also would have seen an article by a former interrogation officer who got more out of a prisoner of war through kindness than torture.

[Steely Dan]

BTW, I've gained my "expertise" in morality by reading the dictionary;

 

 

Main Entry:

1mor·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1moral

Pronunciation:

\ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\

Function:

adjective

Etymology:

Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom

Date:

14th century

 

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

[GG]

I wonder how soon you'd STFU if our soldiers were water boarded. We need to have the moral leadership in the world to maintain our reputation as moral leaders. JMO

 

It seems that, some, people like you want to proclaim America as the bastion of morality in the world and then think doing things extremely immoral is perfectly fine.

 

 

 

I said that we need to maintain moral leadership in the world if we want to claim that title without regard to how our soldiers are treated. My point is that it seems, to some, that immoral acts against them are justified by immoral acts against us.

 

In fact you're proving my point. You seem to think that an eye for an eye foreign policy shows us to be moral leaders. Trust me, it doesn't. Moral leadership is not stooping to the level of savages it's upholding human rights and the laws that regulate war.

 

If you read my links above you'd see that before 43 got into office water boarding was an offense that LE has been jailed for and would cause courtmartialing in the army.

 

You also would have noticed that after WWII when the Japanese were being tried for war crimes water boarding was one of the crimes they were convicted of. You also would have seen an article by a former interrogation officer who got more out of a prisoner of war through kindness than torture.

 

Read again. My argument is that moral equivalence standard is useless, because all it does is make you feel better, yet it has no relevance in the field because the other side was already using the extremes in their actions. In other words, how much worse can they get?

 

As for your examples, it was proven several times that the cases you refer to all dealt with specifically illegal conducts in such cases, which you apply to morally interpret legal conduct in another case.