Bush is wrong, again!!

[Mike AI]

Bush should not have given in to McCain's bill. If it passed he should have vetoed it. This is a stupid law. Just hamstrings the military. Bush should leave that up to democrats.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/congress_detainees

[sudden]

Yea, that's just a stupid move to pass that law. He should've instead passed
a law that permits torturing those who voted him into office - now that would be a smart move AND it may make the rest of the world like him better too.

(And yes Mike, I already know Bush and you both dont care about the rest of the world liking you or not, so no need to bring that up for the 1000th time.)

[sextoyking]

hahha good one Mike

I like the Veto part, bush would of made this bill his first veto in 5 years :)

Will he ever veto a spending / pork filled bill?

[Winetalk.com]

Mike, stop picking on Bush, pink commy you!
;)

[Dravyk]

Oh, I love the "distancing" that's going on! :lmao1:

Next, Mike will be telling people about the old days when he worked on the Gore campaign!! :whistling

[OldJeff]

I agree that we should not torture suspects, but when we get the "known terrorists" that is a different story alltogether.

I am in favor of Melnibonian styles of torture (Any Elric fans in here ?)

[Mike AI]

I agree that we should not torture suspects, but when we get the "known terrorists" that is a different story alltogether.

I am in favor of Melnibonian styles of torture (Any Elric fans in here ?)

Jeff we are on same page. I do not think we should be touturing the rank and file terrorists - most of them are clueless about operations and such. I am talking for the known guys, who are the leadership.

Drav, I would only Back Gore if I was in my Escalade, and he was laying behind it.

I support Bush, but he is far from perfect. He does not go far enough many times in my opinion and he certainly should be using his veto - especially with all the crazy spending coming from Congress.

[MorganGrayson]

I had to tape "NCIS" because my husband was at school and we watched it last night. Their new agent, from the Moussad, was assigned to interrogate a prisoner. She raised an eyebrow and said "you do realize I've never interrogated anyone without some kind of physical pain involved?"

One of the things I dislike the most about humans is their tendency to "paint with too broad a brush." Torture, like just about everything else, comes in "kinds." What kind of torture are we talking about here? Pliers on the testicles? That thing psychologists do with lights, darkness, loud music, etc., that causes the personality to break down?

We're the nation that has yet to come up with a definition for "cruel and unusual punishment." I doubt we're going to make great strides in defining "torture."

We'll just add that to the lengthy list of terms we can't define.

*sigh* Until we need a scapegoat for something. Then whatever that individual did will be labeled "torture" and some group will be mollified.

[Mike AI]

Definately a good point Morgan. Torture is out lawed by the US anyway, always has been. They are trying to stop any coercive interviewing, humiliation or anything like that. It is hard to draw lines, especially when other peoples lives may be on the line.

Honestly Congress should stick its nose out of it, and let the Pentagon handle it.

Congress refuses to handled their business ,but wants to stick their nose in everyone elses. ( pentagon, MLB, NFL, NCAAA, etc....)

The Republican congressional revolution that Newt started has become corrupt - it is time to throw them out.






I had to tape "NCIS" because my husband was at school and we watched it last night. Their new agent, from the Moussad, was assigned to interrogate a prisoner. She raised an eyebrow and said "you do realize I've never interrogated anyone without some kind of physical pain involved?"

One of the things I dislike the most about humans is their tendency to "paint with too broad a brush." Torture, like just about everything else, comes in "kinds." What kind of torture are we talking about here? Pliers on the testicles? That thing psychologists do with lights, darkness, loud music, etc., that causes the personality to break down?

We're the nation that has yet to come up with a definition for "cruel and unusual punishment." I doubt we're going to make great strides in defining "torture."

We'll just add that to the lengthy list of terms we can't define.

*sigh* Until we need a scapegoat for something. Then whatever that individual did will be labeled "torture" and some group will be mollified.

[MorganGrayson]

Definately a good point Morgan. Torture is out lawed by the US anyway, always has been. They are trying to stop any coercive interviewing, humiliation or anything like that. It is hard to draw lines, especially when other peoples lives may be on the line.

Honestly Congress should stick its nose out of it, and let the Pentagon handle it.

Congress refuses to handled their business ,but wants to stick their nose in everyone elses. ( pentagon, MLB, NFL, NCAAA, etc....)

The Republican congressional revolution that Newt started has become corrupt - it is time to throw them out.

It's extremely unrealistic to believe that we can plop a terrorist down in a chair at one of those little wooden tables, offer him a cup of coffee and say "so...about that bioterrorism attack you had planned...how 'bout you tell us all about that?" and anything is going to happen. We're dealing with people who strap bombs to themselves and to what we consider children and blow up large groups of stranger in the name of their god. They're going to require a "special touch" if we actually plan on getting any information out of them.

We have one huge shade of grey area here. Nobody likes the idea of torture, but we have to face the fact that fequently it's going to be necessary. One has to decide which team one is on and play for that team.

Will it be abused? Of course it will. Everything is.

[PornoDoggy]

Class ... class ... settle down and shut the fuck up.

Congress is not "meddling" in the affairs of the Pentagon. They are doing their job. Now, I realize it is patently hip to snarl whenever Congress is mentioned, so I know that fact will be lost on some.

There are others who only make such charges when Congress does something they don't approve of. If, as an example, Congress passed a law tomorrow banning gays and women from the military, some of the same people who contend Congress is "meddling" would praise them for their leadership.

What's even more obvious is that "leaving it to the Pentagon" is a laughable suggestion. The Pentagon is run by the same breed of creature as Congress - by politicians (some in, some out of uniform). There are as many personnel in uniform represented by the sentiments of Murtha or McCain as are represented by Cheney.

The fact that this debate had to take place in the United States Congress is stark proof that this Administration's arrogance is only exceeded by its incompetence.

When prosecuting a war, certain "extralegal" events may need to take place.

Those events should occur in a cold deep dark place that is seldom penetrated by sunlight - or a camera flash.

If it is necessary to treat a prisoner in an extralegal manner, it should be done by professionals, not by untrained or incompetent reserve artillery battalions equipped with cell phone cameras.

If it is necessary to treat the sovereignty of a friendly nation in an extralegal manner, it should not be done by graduates of the "Maxwell Smart" school of espionage conducted more like a segment of the old "Keystone Cops" serial films.

If it is necessary to transfer non-prisoners to non-facilities in other countries in an extralegal manner, it should be conducted in a manner that can't be detected by a second-rate student writer from a third-rate journalism school.

Some things have to be done in certain extreme circumstances, and they have to be done in cold deep dark places so as to avoid causing more damage than good.

This seems to be lost on the bozos running this bus.

[JR]

i think all debate about the morality of torture is irrelevent, ignorant and shortsighted. it has always happened. it does happen. it needs to happen. it will continue to happen. discussion and debate and passing laws on the issue is just theater for the public. nothing more. its really irrelevant what laws the US passes since they are typically not directly torturing anyone anyway. why would they when they can just send them to egypt, syria, jordan, saudi arabia etc. as they typically do?

the older i get, the more i am against any rules of war (except those protecting civilians). why constrain yourself to play by rules that the enemy wont? the greatest deterrent throughout history has always been the fear that the other side is equally brutal and insane and eating babies.

[Dravyk]

Drav, I would only Back Gore if I was in my Escalade, and he was laying behind it. I might not agree with the sentiment, but I have to like the line. :)

[sextoyking]

Congress is there to provide "Oversight" plain and simple, checks and balances.

Jeese this new NSA Spying story is a real doozie for the admin :(

[Mike AI]

Congress is there to provide "Oversight" plain and simple, checks and balances.

Jeese this new NSA Spying story is a real doozie for the admin :(

It is a story about nothing. Senators knew about it, there was oversight, it was in the article. This is about hyping a book - the same author has a book coming out next month.

I support NSA Spyng, we should do more!!

We want to do everything we possibly can to aid the enemy. It is amazing. The next 9-11 is going to be on the Democrats hands. Between killing the patriot act, this scam, the torture thing, saying we are losing in Iraq....

Pathetic that people will say or do anything and put our Country in peril just to slam Bush.

[Biggy]

It is a story about nothing. Senators knew about it, there was oversight, it was in the article. This is about hyping a book - the same author has a book coming out next month.

I support NSA Spyng, we should do more!!

We want to do everything we possibly can to aid the enemy. It is amazing. The next 9-11 is going to be on the Democrats hands. Between killing the patriot act, this scam, the torture thing, saying we are losing in Iraq....

Pathetic that people will say or do anything and put our Country in peril just to slam Bush.

I do have to give Bush credit with the fact there hasn't been another 9-11. I'm from NYC, I see the subways, the tunnels, etc. - they really aren't that secure so my guess is they get a lot of them at the border, etc. Or maybe enough time hasn't elapsed.

Simply put, the Patriot Act could be a good thing, but I don't trust the conservative Republicans in office to use it the right way...

You can't allow torture because if we do, the next time we go to war and Americans are captured... guess what - it opens the door for them to be tortured. Don't think short term. This is why the world say the US is taking a step backwards, we want people to allow torture?

I would support NSA spying, but it's like anything else. It's all about how it is used and if it is used properly. The way things in politics work, a lot of Americans including myself don't trust those in power not to abuse it. Everything in life is about personal gain and rational self-interest. Everyone is also human, especially George W and those around him.

[Nickatilynx]

Any electorate ,once war is declared ,should be given the mushroom treatment. Kept in the dark and fed bullshit.

[RyanLanane]

[QUOTE=Biggy]
You can't allow torture because if we do, the next time we go to war and Americans are captured... guess what - it opens the door for them to be tortured. QUOTE]

And this isn't already a problem? As sad as it is.. Right this second, and aMerican soldier is being tortured somewhere by someone. Most likely a solider that is in secret ops etc... But none the less, do you think Iraqi freelancers right now whoa re still trying to wage war against us... Are going to CARE whether or not we tortured their soldiers when they think (wait, they wouldn't even think about it) about whether to turture a U.S. soldier OR even a citizen for that matter...

I am not saying it's O.K. for us to torture everyone - But I'll be damned if I care if the line is crossed with an enemy soldier to extract information that will save American's lives at home or overseas.

[JR]

You can't allow torture because if we do, the next time we go to war and Americans are captured... guess what - it opens the door for them to be tortured. Don't think short term. This is why the world say the US is taking a step backwards, we want people to allow torture?

thats the oldest and dumbest argument that has existed since the dawn of civilization. rogue regimes are going to act like rogue regimes no matter what conventions the civilized world abides by.

if you stopped and thought for 2 seconds about your arguement you would realize that the inverse would also be true in that others would not torture for fear of their own being tortured.

the US is stepping backwards? really? by passing ANOTHER law against torture? there are tons of laws and international agreements against torture right now. who in government is saying it shoudl be allowed? do you know what "torture" is today? stupid shit like sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation etc. big fucking deal. no one is talking about breaking bones and electrical shocks to the genitals. kill 3000 people in a terrorist attack and someone keeps you awake for a few days. boooo fucking hoooo!

[PornoDoggy]

Any electorate ,once war is declared ,should be given the mushroom treatment. Kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Then all bets are off in this case.

The last time the United States declared war was 12/8/1945.

[PornoDoggy]

thats the oldest and dumbest argument that has existed since the dawn of civilization. rogue regimes are going to act like rogue regimes no matter what conventions the civilized world abides by.

if you stopped and thought for 2 seconds about your arguement you would realize that the inverse would also be true in that others would not torture for fear of their own being tortured.

the US is stepping backwards? really? by passing ANOTHER law against torture? there are tons of laws and international agreements against torture right now. who in government is saying it shoudl be allowed? do you know what "torture" is today? stupid shit like sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation etc. big fucking deal. no one is talking about breaking bones and electrical shocks to the genitals. kill 3000 people in a terrorist attack and someone keeps you awake for a few days. boooo fucking hoooo!
Life is really simple in JR's world.

The law passed by Congress this week was only necessary because the Bush Administration has taken us backwards in our adherence to many treaties, the Geneva conventions on treatment of prisoners being only one of them.

How much sleep or sensory deprivation have you undergone? What is your level of expertise in being treated like a prisoner?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have any objections to removing the genitals of an individual responsible for a terrorist attack with a very dull knife over a long period of time.

Not sure I would object to that same treatment for the individuals responsible for allowing terrorists the opportunity to operate realtively freely in Iraq, either.

I do have a problem with the United States being responsible for such treatment, or sleep and sensory deprivation, etc., because somebody happened to be walking down the wrong street at the wrong time, or because somebody's neighbor was still pissed off about the party last week and informed on them.

[JR]

I do have a problem with the United States being responsible for such treatment, or sleep and sensory deprivation, etc., because somebody happened to be walking down the wrong street at the wrong time, or because somebody's neighbor was still pissed off about the party last week and informed on them.

the world is an imperfect place. people also get struck by lightning. so what? thats like saying "what happens if you get convicted of murder and sentenced to death"... well... it would suck. and? the system is not perfect and cannot be no matter what measures you put in place to protect the innocent and the rights of terrorists.

oh... "yeah, well what if it was you?" you are going to say as if that argument hasn't been heard a million times. well... since i know the odds are about 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that i will be suspected of terrorism, i dont care. i did not go study in afghanistan. i did not frequent any terrorist camps. i did not make suspicious trips to chechnya. i dont frequent mosques and hang with known supporters of terrorist networks, i dont fly back and forth to syria and i dont bring box cutters on commercial flights.

oh... you are suggesting that people can just be nabbed at random without cause or warrants or anything and then be tortured? PDworld sounds like a scary place. a place where all reality ceases to exist and everyones worst paranoias become the rule of law.

and besides.... lets not pretend that no one is accountable when a mistake is made... and it just happens all the time. or are you going to further your argument by suggesting that not only will this person be mistakenly nabbed on the street for no reason at all with no supporting evidence and documents or a warrant, then be tortured... and then will be murdered with his body dissapearing?

arguments like this are not about 1000's of mistakes. they are about an occasional mistake. so what? how many people are sitting on death row right now that are innocent? MANY MORE than will be abducted by men in black and tortured for information they dont have. maybe we should be worrying about that first? but then again its not something you are worried can happen to you since you don't envision yourself standing outside a bar, drunk and holding a murder weapon anytime soon.

(ps... my tone sounds really shitty... its just for effect. i am just really joking around out of boredom for the sake of entertainment)

[Dravyk]

We want to do everything we possibly can to aid the enemy. It is amazing. The next 9-11 is going to be on the Democrats hands. Between killing the patriot act, this scam, the torture thing, saying we are losing in Iraq....

Pathetic that people will say or do anything and put our Country in peril just to slam Bush. Mike, two days ago a family could not get on a fucking plane because their EIGHT-MONTH OLD BABY happens to have the same name as someone on the no-fly list created in 2002 -- over two years before the baby was born!! And the family STILL are not allowed to fly and may never be able to until the Patriot SuckMyDick Act is repealed .... So bull the fuck shit!!!!!!!

And in case you think that name is Abu-Sadid Sahan or some such shit, it turns out the name "Peter Jackson" is just one name on that list and 40,000 Americans with that name are forbidden from flying. And that's just the very TIP of the Bush-fucked iceburg.

There is a point where you and the other brown-lipped Bush-ass kissers have left the world of REALITY totally behind. And you have just crossed the line into that la-la world.

So, tell ya what, Mike, if you have the balls -- which you never would in this reality -- why don't you be a patriotic citizen and you go and visit that family, face-to-face and you tell them just how they are saving America. Ok???

Until that happens ... you and the rest of your delusional conservative cronies can just STFU!!! http://oprano.com/msgboard/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Jeremy]

if you stopped and thought for 2 seconds about your arguement you would realize that the inverse would also be true in that others would not torture for fear of their own being tortured.


Yeah! Get your retaliation in first! That's the way to do it.

[Jeremy]

And in case you think that name is Abu-Sadid Sahan or some such shit, it turns out the name "Peter Jackson" is just one name on that list and 40,000 Americans with that name are forbidden from flying.

???????

Please tell me the "system" is slightly more advanced than just a name? No description, pic etc?

Or is it inconceivable that someone who's able to plan something jolly dastardly might also possibly have the wherewithal to change their name?

[Dravyk]

Please tell me the "system" is slightly more advanced than just a name? No description, pic etc?? I wish I could. That's the point. If they are sooo freaking stupid that they can't figure out a little baby isn't a terrorist ... that a baby born two years after his "name" was place on a list ....

I don't have the words ... I really just do not ...

The stupidity has exceeded all bounds of previous stupidity ... It's at some new advanced level or new dimension of dumbness, there isn't even a name for it.


Btw, found the article. Actually a shorter one than the one I saw first the other day:

"Your Baby is a Suspected Terrorist."

D.C.- A 9-month-old baby and his family were denied their boarding passes for a flight from the USA to Italy. He was on the US Transport Security Administration's secretive 'No-Fly' list which deems individuals as suspected terrorists.

[JR]

I wish I could. That's the point. If they are sooo freaking stupid that they can't figure out a little baby isn't a terrorist ... that a baby born two years after his "name" was place on a list ....

I don't have the words ... I really just do not ...

The stupidity has exceeded all bounds of previous stupidity ... It's at some new advanced level or new dimension of dumbness, there isn't even a name for it.


Btw, found the article. Actually a shorter one than the one I saw first the other day:

"Your Baby is a Suspected Terrorist."

D.C.- A 9-month-old baby and his family were denied their boarding passes for a flight from the USA to Italy. He was on the US Transport Security Administration's secretive 'No-Fly' list which deems individuals as suspected terrorists.

here is a crazy idea. maybe... just maybe... possibly... the TSA officials were following policy and realized it was completey stupid and could do nothing about it and had no say in the matter.

OR... maybe there are solid reasons for this policy as it is.

i am no fan of the federal government and its general incompetence being that i have had my own experiences flying as well... however, they put a set of policies in place that should work well most of the time and that side with caution to protect the safety of everyone.

[PornoDoggy]

We should all sleep soundly tonight because of the safety assured us by the fact that the 9-month-old terrorist was not able to fly.

I know of at least one local woman, nearing 60 and admittedly active in liberal causes, who is on the "Watch List" because she was pulled out and searched at a regional airport for no reason other than a political button she was wearing. She complied, but proceeded to raise a stink about it AFTER her flight, and her reward is constant hassles every time she flies.

Now, I know that a good little Nazi or Iranian or ChiCom should know better than to question the state security apparatchiks when they are busy following procedure, which is much simpler than ensuring security. Still, some of us cling to the notion that we are Americans.

When the next terrorist attack comes, it will be blamed on opponents of even more draconian security measures than what have already been enacted.

I can almost guarantee you that the actual cause will turn out to involve simple, common-sense measures considered and rejected as too expensive for corporate supporters of the current Administration, as well as of politicians on both sides of the aisle.

[Dravyk]

here is a crazy idea. maybe... just maybe... possibly... the TSA officials were following policy and realized it was completey stupid and could do nothing about it and had no say in the matter.

OR... maybe there are solid reasons for this policy as it is.

i am no fan of the federal government and its general incompetence being that i have had my own experiences flying as well... however, they put a set of policies in place that should work well most of the time and that side with caution to protect the safety of everyone. Yeah, you're right ... Your idea is crazy..

I'm betting if they stopped people flying who use the nick "J.R." you just might not approve so readily of such a moronic policy.

[JR]

Yeah, you're right ... Your idea is crazy..

I'm betting if they stopped people flying who use the nick "J.R." you just might not approve so readily of such a moronic policy.

where did i say i approved of any policy? i am just not so quick to say "i am much smarter and more informed than the all of people charged with developing and implementing these policies"

[JR]

Yeah! Get your retaliation in first! That's the way to do it.
not what i was saying at all. if you use the argument that torture will result in retaliation, then you have to assume that the other side see's value in using torture as a means of cohersion. if thats true then the whole argument falls apart.

i personally dont believe that Iran would capture 100 soldiers or pilots after an attack on their nuclear facilities and not do everything possible to extract every bit of info they could for them and seriously doubt that the health and wellbeing of those captives would be their first concern.

intelligence relies very heavily on torture to extract info quickly when the situation requires. do you think 10 guys who tried to blow up an embassy and killed 300 people are just going to sit down and give up the details of their organization without any form of cohersion? what if more attacks are imminent? are you supposed to ask people who hate you more than anything in this world and want to kill as many of your people as possible nicely to give you some help?

torture is not something thats done for sadistic fun. its a method from extracting info. the more pressure they can put on someone, the more info they get and the more accurate it tends to be.

i dont think people should be getting their dicks cut off an served to them on a bed of rice for breakfast just to see if they know something... but i think that smacking people around, playing mind games, breaking them down by depriving them of food, sleep, isolation etc is fine.

you can't apply all the rules of compassion and humanity to people who are 100% pure evil.

[JR]

there was a show on the history channel just yesterday about the 84 embassy bombing in beirut. lebonese authorities nabbed most of them within an hour (because they already knew who they were and what they were going to do).

they were interrogated by the CIA, trying to be nice etc. finally the interrogators went to their superiors and said "either we get rough with these guys or we should just go home because we are wasting our time". what happened? some new guys came in, beat the shit out of them. they starting finding more people. arrested one guy who was well connected and thought was untouchable and who actually organized the whole thing, they beat the shit out of him and broke him down until he started talking.

then they got to the bottom of everything pretty quickly. what if he was innocent? well, that would suck. the problem in all of this is that its not so black and white. bad people, who already do not fear death and are doing terrible shit and motivated by hatred dont talk very easily either.

my point is simply that there has to be some balance. you can't just categorically say "ok, we are not even going to go as far as sleep deprivation because we are very high and mighty and shining beacons of morality" -- when you have no other ways to get info and reliable info and particularly time sensitive info from them.

what you do is exactly what is being done now. you publically say you are the shining beacon of morality and in private you send teams of people in to kidnap and torture people or fly them to somewhere and let those security services do it. thats why i said the new bill is just a silly political game and theater for the public. somewhere in saudi arabia, there is a guy named habib right now getting his ass beaten within an inch of his life because he has info on the insurgency in iraq, terrorist plots or whatever. so be it. i am very ok with that. suggesting that some poor kid walking down 1st avenue in seattle is going to get mistakenly nabbed by men in black and tortured (which under the law, really means some pretty mild shit anyway) is no more troublesome to me than suggesting someone might die in a car wreck. shit happens.

[PornoDoggy]

Oh, fuck. By gawdamitey, torture must work - they said so on the History Channel!!!

I haven't seen that one yet, but I can tell you that it's hard not to hear the grinding of axes beneath the soundrtracks of many of their shows (both left- and right-handed axes, I might add). I've seen a number of History Channel shows in the last couple of years that suggest that the biasedliberalmedia has been infiltrated by elements of the vastrightwingconspiracy. I will have to check it out.

I agree that this is not an issue that can be decided with an exchange of platitudes. My objection is not so much that certain interrogation techniques are employed as it is in the way that they have been employed to date.

The broad-brush attitude and incomprehensible ineptitude of the Bush Administration is what made the debates in Congress necessary.

The alternate theory to "shit happens" is the Rev. Niemoeller quote, of course.

Nobody seems to mind when shit happens unless the shit is happening to them and theirs.

[JR]

Oh, fuck. By gawdamitey, torture must work - they said so on the History Channel!!!

right. because i am just an uneducated moron who does not have an informed opinion about anything unless its spoon fed to me by bush or from a documentary. it was just a documentary about the bombings and the cia agent who was responsible for the interrogations with a lot of interviews from all those involved including him and others that worked with him. i dont think the history channel was telling him what to say. i am willing to take the position that what i just said is well documented, historical fact. if you can challenge that, please do so.

saying that bush is responsible for a debate on torture is pure lunacy. the conversation has always been about how to extract information from terrorists and what the limits should be... if you believe bush is responsible, then you would have to also argue that this debate would not be happening if Gore was president and 9/11 happened. can ya do that? ....didn't think so. ;)

[JR]

The alternate theory to "shit happens" is the Rev. Niemoeller quote, of course.

Nobody seems to mind when shit happens unless the shit is happening to them and theirs.
acceptable risk. stop being selfish. this is about the security of 260,000,000 people. not the security of your aunt edna.

[PornoDoggy]

Uhhh ... excuse me.

You cited a source (History Channel) as verification that torture works.

I questioned the source, albeit with sarcasm. I did not mean to imply I think you are a moron.

Start posting that the Democrats are going to be responsible for the next terrorist attack, and you will qualify.

The question about Bush v Gore as CinC after 9/11 is intriguing. There is no doubt in my mind that we would have crushed Afghanistan after 9/11 - we would have done that under Ralph Nader.

I personally believe that we would not even be in Iraq - certainly not under anything remotely resembling the current circumstances - under a Gore Administration. That would eliminate much of the falderal and hoopla about this issue. I also believe that a Gore Administration would not operate under the same ideaology as Bush does, so the public attacks on adherence to international treaties (including the Geneva Conventions) would not be occuring.

You are entitled to your opinion on what is an acceptable risk. Mine differs. You are entitled to think my reasons are selfish. I don't agree. I personally think my opinions are grounded on what the United States is and stands for.

[JR]

Uhhh ... excuse me.

You cited a source (History Channel) as verification that torture works.

i cited a documentary of an event and the source of the info was the people who were directly involved.

I personally think my opinions are grounded on what the United States is and stands for.

the above is interesting and i understand what you are saying. so ok. lets agree that america is the epitome of all thats holy and good in the world. ... that still leaves a question to be answered... how do you extract information from a terrorist?

you also said
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have any objections to removing the genitals of an individual responsible for a terrorist attack with a very dull knife over a long period of time.

is that what "america stands for"

if you found out your dad was the terrorist, would you want his balls cut off? or are you just being selective in your reasoning?

[PornoDoggy]

My dad? Now we are getting even more absurd. As if I would bother worrying about my (great) Aunt Edna (dead dried up John Birch bitch that she was), now you gotta bring my daddy into the picture?

The only people who could accuse my father of being a terrorist would be some very old German, Italian, and Vichy French cocksuckers he shot at in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean, North Africa, or the coast of France between 1940 and 1944. His demographic - deceased 3rd-generation-American Coast Guard WWII veterans of German extraction - is hard to envision as terrorists.

I have would no compunction cutting off the balls of a terrorist, regardless of their relationship to me.

How I would treat those suspected of terrorism is something completely different - regardless of whether it was here or in Bumfuckistan.

There are a lot of variables that are too complex to debate in a pithy manner; suffice it to say that the damage done by beating too many Habib's based on the word of a disgruntled neighbor or business rival will do more long term damage than achieve any short-term gains.

[JR]

suffice it to say that the damage done by beating too many Habib's based on the word of a disgruntled neighbor or business rival will do more long term damage than achieve any short-term gains.

the concern is that the CIA is going to mobilize a team of people to surveille, investigate and then arrest and torture someone because a disgruntled neighbor made a phone call?

i think you underestimate intelligence agencies and how they operate.


Intelligence Fundamentals 101 (actually Soviet KGB rule)

- always investigate the snitch first.

:)

[PornoDoggy]

the concern is that the CIA is going to mobilize a team of people to surveille, investigate and then arrest and torture someone because a disgruntled neighbor made a phone call?

i think you underestimate intelligence agencies and how they operate.


Intelligence Fundamentals 101 (actually Soviet KGB rule)

- always investigate the snitch first.

:)
What do you think they are doing in Iraq and in Afghanistan?

Why do you think that large numbers of people have been swept up into American controlled detention centers without any connection to terrorists - at least before they have been detained?

You keep saying I underestimate intelligence agencies and how they operate, and that is simply not true.

I'm saying you don't have a clue as to the level of Maxwell Smart techniques that this Administration is using in the operation of the intelligence agencies.

The operation which plucked the guy out of Italy is only one example of how their arrogance is only exceeded by their incompetence.

I have no doubt that various police agencies throughout the United States are reconstituting something akin to the old "Red Squads", and the targets of these squads are as likely to be dissenters as terrorists - they are much easier to catch.

I believe that there have been public disclosures of such in both Denver and California so far.

[Dravyk]

:nothingto