Obama vs Cheney

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:

Like I said you made your conclusion before you read anything on the subject. What’s the point. Fanatics won’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

�¢??Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.�¢??

Marcus Tullius Cicero

â??Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a viceâ??

Thomas Paine

[/quote]

ok. by your principals is it ok to kill in order to save lives?

62

[quote]hedo wrote:
Bottom line it worked. It drives the libs crazy.
[/quote]

When did it work? If we captured KSM after the Liberty Tower plot was foiled how did waterboarding KSM help?

I’m not saying it’s impossible that torture might produce reliable, actionable intelligence, but it seems unlikely as most trained interrogators seem to think torture is next to useless as a tool (and there have been no examples of waterboarding producing such intelligence yet shown).

63

[quote]dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:

Like I said you made your conclusion before you read anything on the subject. What’s the point. Fanatics won’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

�?�¢??Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.�?�¢??

Marcus Tullius Cicero

�¢??Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice�¢??

Thomas Paine

ok. by your principals is it ok to kill in order to save lives?[/quote]

Not as long as the other one does not initiate the violence.

And that is the whole point.

Because with a lot of people in Guantanamo and Abu Ghareib you just did not know.

64

[quote]valiance. wrote:
hedo wrote:
Bottom line it worked. It drives the libs crazy.

When did it work? If we captured KSM after the Liberty Tower plot was foiled how did waterboarding KSM help?

I’m not saying it’s impossible that torture might produce reliable, actionable intelligence, but it seems unlikely as most trained interrogators seem to think torture is next to useless as a tool (and there have been no examples of waterboarding producing such intelligence yet shown).[/quote]

That statement is nothing more then a nuch repeated red herring the Democrats used to gain power. Those trained interrogators that you mention are the same ones that want to use waterboarding and probably more to get results. It wasn’t Cheyney who demanded they use it, it was the people actually doing the interrogations who wanted to use it and they were supported.

If it didn’t work they wouldn’t be asking to use it. Really quiet simple but you need to think rationally about it first.

65

[quote]orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:

Like I said you made your conclusion before you read anything on the subject. What’s the point. Fanatics won’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

�??�??�?�¢??Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.�??�??�?�¢??

Marcus Tullius Cicero

�??�?�¢??Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice�??�?�¢??

Thomas Paine

ok. by your principals is it ok to kill in order to save lives?

Not as long as the other one does not initiate the violence.
[/quote]
So any military tactic that harms, much less kills, anyone that does not initiate violence is unaccapable. Or just waterboarding? The military guys can speak up on this one, but I would have to assume waiting to be shot at first my be a bit of an issue. Using tactics that only harm those that initiate violence may be an issue as well. And by harm i don’t mean actually physical harm. I mean scaring them or making them feel their life is in danger.

I really hope we are starting to illustrate how absolutly ridiculous the waterboarding argument really is.

yep, this is the whole point. if you were a peacenick or a passivist i could understand you argument.

Again, what are we talking about here? Waterboarding of 3 people or unautorized mistreatment of prisoners by guards? Can we quit bringing up Abu Grareib and Guantanamo in conversations they don’t belong in?

66

[quote]dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:

Like I said you made your conclusion before you read anything on the subject. What’s the point. Fanatics won’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

�??�??�??�?�¢??Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.�??�??�??�?�¢??

Marcus Tullius Cicero

�??�??�?�¢??Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice�??�??�?�¢??

Thomas Paine

ok. by your principals is it ok to kill in order to save lives?

Not as long as the other one does not initiate the violence.

So any military tactic that harms, much less kills, anyone that does not initiate violence is unaccapable. Or just waterboarding? The military guys can speak up on this one, but I would have to assume waiting to be shot at first my be a bit of an issue. Using tactics that only harm those that initiate violence may be an issue as well. And by harm i don’t mean actually physical harm. I mean scaring them or making them feel their life is in danger.

I really hope we are starting to illustrate how absolutly ridiculous the waterboarding argument really is.

And that is the whole point.

yep, this is the whole point. if you were a peacenick or a passivist i could understand you argument.

Because with a lot of people in Guantanamo and Abu Ghareib you just did not know.

Again, what are we talking about here? Waterboarding of 3 people or unautorized mistreatment of prisoners by guards? Can we quit bringing up Abu Grareib and Guantanamo in conversations they don’t belong in?
[/quote]

But they do belong together.

An itsy bitsy tiny bit of torturing was ok and months later GI were raping and torturing to their hearts delight.

They even made photos.

That should give you an idea of how accepted that practice really was, how likely they thought it was that they would get caught and that they generally expected to get away with it.

To your question above, why you should fear that this military tactic is used on US soil against Us citizens, that already happened.

Turns out that after the war in the Philippines a lot of soldiers came home and put into practice what they had learned in war, namely waterboarding.

Since war veterans are actively recruited by several police departments you have an excellent chance to be at the mercy of someone some day who knows that he can torture you and that he will get away with it.

That not only could happen , that already happened once.

67

[quote]orion wrote:
But they do belong together.

An itsy bitsy tiny bit of torturing was ok and months later GI were raping and torturing to their hearts delight.

They even made photos.
[/quote]
I am really starting to tier of this. I am starting to think you actually beleive what you are trying to argue. You are either doing this for fun or you now realize you have no arguement but continue to try and dig yourself out. Either that or win simply by exhausting you opponent.

Soldiers “torturing and raping” (really?) in AG has nothing to do with interogation experts determining what tactics are necessary for extracting information from 3 terrorists. Soldiers can misbehave in a number of ways, they are people after all. Where they not punished?

This is complete bullshit. You think these guys really said “well since we’ve waterboarded 3 terrorists nobody will mind if stack a bunch of these towelheads up naked”? This is just getting silly.

[quote]
To your question above, why you should fear that this military tactic is used on US soil against Us citizens, that already happened.

Turns out that after the war in the Philippines a lot of soldiers came home and put into practice what they had learned in war, namely waterboarding.

Since war veterans are actively recruited by several police departments you have an excellent chance to be at the mercy of someone some day who knows that he can torture you and that he will get away with it.

That not only could happen , that already happened once.[/quote]

Really? Where? Did they get away with it? Maybe we should teach them to kill either. I mean, they might kill someone state side.

I am out my friend. The arguement is just getting silly. You cannot justify killing and condem waterboarding. It just doesn’t work.

68

[quote]dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
But they do belong together.

An itsy bitsy tiny bit of torturing was ok and months later GI were raping and torturing to their hearts delight.

They even made photos.

I am really starting to tier of this. I am starting to think you actually beleive what you are trying to argue. You are either doing this for fun or you now realize you have no arguement but continue to try and dig yourself out. Either that or win simply by exhausting you opponent.

Soldiers “torturing and raping” (really?) in AG has nothing to do with interogation experts determining what tactics are necessary for extracting information from 3 terrorists. Soldiers can misbehave in a number of ways, they are people after all. Where they not punished?

That should give you an idea of how accepted that practice really was, how likely they thought it was that they would get caught and that they generally expected to get away with it.

This is complete bullshit. You think these guys really said “well since we’ve waterboarded 3 terrorists nobody will mind if stack a bunch of these towelheads up naked”? This is just getting silly.

To your question above, why you should fear that this military tactic is used on US soil against Us citizens, that already happened.

Turns out that after the war in the Philippines a lot of soldiers came home and put into practice what they had learned in war, namely waterboarding.

Since war veterans are actively recruited by several police departments you have an excellent chance to be at the mercy of someone some day who knows that he can torture you and that he will get away with it.

That not only could happen , that already happened once.

Really? Where? Did they get away with it? Maybe we should teach them to kill either. I mean, they might kill someone state side.

I am out my friend. The arguement is just getting silly. You cannot justify killing and condem waterboarding. It just doesn’t work.[/quote]

I never justified the killings.

I remember quite well to have called those soldiers paid thugs and murderers.

Now should someone actually attack the US, they would actually have a right to defend it.

69

It comes down to this:

As a military “tactic” torture does not work any better than any other “tactic” to get information from someone.

In fact, it is quite possible that the information gained will be false because everyone will submit an answer under torture. “I don’t know,” is not an acceptable answer. If you do not in fact know an answer you will make one up. And believe me, the way you see it done on TV is not the way it is really done.

There is a definite intimidation and fear factor that goes into it – very theatrical actually. These “interrogators” are trained to take on “special” personalities while they do it. This “tactic” is used for every regular non-torture interrogation too – and it is often the mere threat of torture made under this guise that is enough to elicit an answer without actually having to go through with it. Most of the interrogators I have known will say that torture is not a preferable tactic.

70

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It comes down to this:

As a military “tactic” torture does not work any better than any other “tactic” to get information from someone.

In fact, it is quite possible that the information gained will be false because everyone will submit an answer under torture. “I don’t know,” is not an acceptable answer. If you do not in fact know an answer you will make one up. And believe me, the way you see it done on TV is not the way it is really done.

There is a definite intimidation and fear factor that goes into it – very theatrical actually. These “interrogators” are trained to take on “special” personalities while they do it. This “tactic” is used for every regular non-torture interrogation too – and it is often the mere threat of torture made under this guise that is enough to elicit an answer without actually having to go through with it. Most of the interrogators I have known will say that torture is not a preferable tactic.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with any of this but I fail to see how removing waterboarding as an option is defensable logically or morally (unless you are a passavist).

71

[quote]orion wrote:

Now should someone actually attack the US, they would actually have a right to defend it.

[/quote]

defend it how? by killing (sometimes civilians), destroying property, but not waterboarding three terrorists that did attack us? I just don’t see how this could be any clearer? Killing is worse than frightening someone or making them uncomfortable.

72

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< You should know me better than that by now. It is of grave importance to me. Maybe even more than it is to you, I suspect. I understand the slippery slope argument on this subject so I am somewhat torn. I guess the pragmatism in me trumps the immediate fear of the future bottom of the slope. I realize this allows you to lob an inconsistency charge at me. So be it for now. If you end up being right about this you can freely rub my nose in it.[/quote]

Very very good. That IS the internal tug o war isn’t it? We should be very careful about HOW this nation is secured on one hand and on the other, if we don’t do what is actually necessary there won’t be a nation TO secure. A genuine conundrum that becomes more more and more complicated as time goes on.

People who solve this one easily either way are dangerous.

73

[quote]tme wrote:

Yes, because Bush signed an executive order in 2003 prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits. Cheney knows that, and that order was probably his idea to protect himself and Libby from the Plame lawsuit.

Here’s a great article from McClatchy that points out all of The Dick’s lies, omissions and obfuscations in yesterday’s speech:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090521/pl_mcclatchy/3237981
[/quote]

…What bill was that?

If you’re talking about the Executive Order 13233, which limits public access to papers of all Presidents since 1980 (which people thought Bush was trying to help Bush senior when he was ViP for Reagen and President) and that law/bill reversed the 1978 law/bill that released papers from Presidents that had been out of the office for 12 years…

That bill was signed on Nov. 1, 2001, not 2003

74

[quote]ALKoHoLiK wrote:

That bill was signed on Nov. 1, 2001, not 2003[/quote]

Well then I guess it’s not that one, huh? Can you differentiate between a “bill” and an executive order? And if the article clearly states “a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits”, why would you pick one signed in 2001 and assume that is the one mentioned? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

76

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:Now should someone actually attack the US, they would actually have a right to defend it.

Thanks for pointing out that your ignorance has no limits…we were all wondering.[/quote]

Another good patriot! Tow that line, baby! They hate us 'cause we’re free!

77

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

Thanks for pointing out that your ignorance has no limits…we were all wondering.[/quote]

You never wonder.

You always know.

78

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:Now should someone actually attack the US, they would actually have a right to defend it.

Thanks for pointing out that your ignorance has no limits…we were all wondering.

Another good patriot! Tow that line, baby! They hate us 'cause we’re free!

[/quote]

I wonder why they do not bomb Dubai?

Or the Netherlands? Or Hong Kong?