• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservative radio host gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

That is your personal opinion which unfortunately require one to have a pre-911 mentality and are not shared by people like me who understand that if lives are in danger and these less than severe methods could be a way to save them, then it makes perfect sense to use them.

First, let me say that I have probably dealt more closely, and at greater personal hazard, with lives in danger and violent criminals, than you ever will.

Secondly, I worked for a law enforcement agency, and currently train law enforcement officers. Protecting innocent civilians is one of my highest values.

WE DO NOT MAKE THIS COUNTRY SAFER BY UNDERMINING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES.

But I will refer you to someone who knows far more and knows better of what he is talking about than you or I from your article:

One came from former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, who expressed disbelief that the administration was prepared to expose methods it might later decide it needed.

"Are you telling me that under all conditions of threat, you will never interfere with the sleep cycle of a detainee?" Hayden asked a top White House official, according to sources familiar with the exchange.

There is a difference between "interfering with a sleep cycle" and SHACKLING PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN ADJUDICATED GUILTY OF A CRIME, NAKED IN DIAPERS, in such bodily contortion that they are in nearly constant pain and cannot sleep for days, feed themselves, or eliminate on their own auspices.

Let's be f'ing clear on that, shall we?


From the beginning, sleep deprivation had been one of the most important elements in the CIA's interrogation program, used to help break dozens of suspected terrorists, far more than the most violent approaches. And it is among the methods the agency fought hardest to keep.[/I]

There is a reason why the FBI pulled their agents away from these protocols. The FBI administration understood clearly where this was headed, and that it would potentially expose their agents to prosecution.

The CIA does not have a track record of respecting human rights or the law, to be quite blunt.

They sound like the methods used by a Democratic Nation under assault from terrorists who desire to find methods to kill even higher numbers of our people than what occurred on 9-11.

NO, they don't, dude.

9/11 scared me, too. Many of my co-workers were stranded around the U.S. by 9/11. I took my first flight to provide training 3 weeks after 9/11. I left two children and a husband, and the flight was f'ing terrifying. I spent the week that we bombed Afghanistan for the first time on a business trip in DC.

BUT WE DON'T DO THIS.

FEAR is not an excuse to violate the core principles this nation was founded upon. If we become like them, they've won.

I'm no liberal.

But, there is always an excuse to capitulate to tyranny. There is today, and there were 100 years ago, and there will be 100 years from now.

Patriots simply don't. I respect the blood of patriots that freed this nation from tyranny TOO DAMN MUCH to EVER allow partisan politics or a single political administration to justify dismantling our civil liberties.

The actions you describe are NOT the actions of a democratic country. They are the actions of cowards who felt they were above the law.

I have to say that I am fully culpable. I consider myself such. I voted for Bush--twice. I never believed he was capable of this. But, he was wrong, and these actions are in violation of our dearest, and most important principles.
 
Last edited:
So now you reduce your comments to the lowest possible common denominator in the fashion that Lerxst wallows in? I foolish that I expected much more from you. :roll:

Why is the word "irony" popping into my head....
 
I don't have a legal background, however, I do consider the opinions rendered by the FBI staff attorneys (who advised that FBI agents be pulled from joint CIA/FBI operations due to legal violations) and the ABA to be more credible than those of the Bush legal flunkies.

Since I can tell that you have a sincere desire to learn more about this subject, here's some light reading:

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aba/abatskforce103rpt.pdf

Enjoy. :wink:

I see that you missed the core assessment of the document you linked and that hardly supports your naive contentions about what constitutes unlawful treatment and torture:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges t 1 hat U.S. citizens and other
2 persons lawfully present in the United States who are detained within the United States based
3 on their designation as "enemy combatants" be afforded the opportunity for meaningful
4 judicial review of their status; and
5
6 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges that U.S. citizens
7 and other persons lawfully present in the United States who are detained within the United

8 States based on their designation as "enemy combatants" not be denied access to counsel in
9 connection with the opportunity for such review; and
10
11 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges Congress, in
12 coordination with the Executive Branch, to establish clear standards and procedures
13 governing the designation and treatment of U.S. citizens and other persons lawfully present
14 in the United States who are detained within the United States as "enemy combatants;" and

15
16 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges that, in setting
17 and executing national policy regarding U.S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in
18 the United States who are detained within the United States
based on their designation as
19 "enemy combatants," Congress and the Executive Branch should consider how the policy
20 adopted by the United States may affect the response of other nations to future acts of
21 terrorism.


Once more, we are NOT talking about US citizens, citizens detained in the US or people who have committed crimes on US soil.

I am fascinated that Liberals and perhaps a few others do not get this still; these are NON-Citizens caught in the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and other foreign countries either in the acts of conducting terrorism, planning terrorism, in terrorist training camps or believed to be supporting terrorist activities.

Obama rightly re-constituted the Tribunals because they are the ONLY way to deal with these people. This is also the reason it would be idiotic for Obama to close down Gitmo; he knows this but cannot admit it to the rabid left that supports him.

Let me make this clear; these are not terrorists who came into OUR country and committed a crime on US soil or US Citizens.
 
I hate to break it to you, TD, but I have it on good authority, from my sister in law who served for 3 years there, that GITMO is, in fact, U.S. soil.

:rofl
 
So now you reduce your comments to the lowest possible common denominator in the fashion that Lerxst wallows in? I foolish that I expected much more from you. :roll:

Sorry. Salad tossing jokes are irresistible. I blame cops and their terrible influence on me.
 
I hate to break it to you, TD, but I have it on good authority, from my sister in law who served for 3 years there, that GITMO is, in fact, U.S. soil.

:rofl

I hate to disagree with you, but unfortunately, my honesty requires I correct you on this: We lease Gitmo from Cuba. The Cubans claim the lease is invalid.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitmo]Guantanamo Bay Naval Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Nonetheless, for the purposes of law, aren't U.S. military facilities considered U.S. soil?

Not sure actually. For the purposes of this discussion, I can see it being argued both ways depending on which side of the issue you are on.

Any of our lawyer types around and know an answer for sure?
 
First, let me say that I have probably dealt more closely, and at greater personal hazard, with lives in danger and violent criminals, than you ever will.

Secondly, I worked for a law enforcement agency, and currently train law enforcement officers. Protecting innocent civilians is one of my highest values.

WE DO NOT MAKE THIS COUNTRY SAFER BY UNDERMINING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES.

For someone who claims they are in law enforcement, your ability to deal with the FACTS of this case is weak at best. It is pretty obvious you’re more guided by your emotions than the FACTS.

Once again, we are NOT talking about “civil liberties” here. Where in any of the FACTS are we dealing with “civil liberties?” When did NON-UNIFORMED ENYMY COMBATANTS who are captured on foreign soil suddenly obtain these “civil liberties?”



There is a difference between "interfering with a sleep cycle" and SHACKLING PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN ADJUDICATED GUILTY OF A CRIME, NAKED IN DIAPERS, in such bodily contortion that they are in nearly constant pain and cannot sleep for days, feed themselves, or eliminate on their own auspices.

Let's be f'ing clear on that, shall we?

I notice you are referring to techniques that were used illegally by a select few who then were prosecuted for it.

Certainly you are not expecting me to fall for this Lerxst like red herring are you?

There is a reason why the FBI pulled their agents away from these protocols. The FBI administration understood clearly where this was headed, and that it would potentially expose their agents to prosecution.

The CIA does not have a track record of respecting human rights or the law, to be quite blunt.

Once again, your lack of FACTS to support the farcical assertion that illegalities occurred and personal opinions are hardly a substitute for the facts in this case.

9/11 scared me, too. Many of my co-workers were stranded around the U.S. by 9/11. I took my first flight to provide training 3 weeks after 9/11. I left two children and a husband, and the flight was f'ing terrifying. I spent the week that we bombed Afghanistan for the first time on a business trip in DC.

BUT WE DON'T DO THIS.

This isn’t about being scared; this is about an administration and President who took their primary duty to protect American lives serious in the aftermath of 9-11.
FEAR is not an excuse to violate the core principles this nation was founded upon. If we become like them, they've won.

No core principles were violated. Again, your personal opinions do not make a good substitute for the FACTS. I gave you the definition of torture, and you have still not addressed how these enhanced methods can be intellectually connected to the definition of torture or the intellectual requirements of torture.

I'm no liberal. .

I never claimed you were; but you argue like one in many instances. You allow your emotional state to interfere with common sense and dealing with the FACTS.

But, there is always an excuse to capitulate to tyranny. There is today, and there were 100 years ago, and there will be 100 years from now.

Patriots simply don't. I respect the blood of patriots that freed this nation from tyranny TOO DAMN MUCH to EVER allow partisan politics or a single political administration to justify dismantling our civil liberties.

The actions you describe are NOT the actions of a democratic country. They are the actions of cowards who felt they were above the law.

Now you are entering into farcical hyperbole when you suggest that the previous Administration or ANY for that matter could be “tyrannical.” Another EMOTION filled argument with little substance.

I have to say that I am fully culpable. I consider myself such. I voted for Bush--twice. I never believed he was capable of this. But, he was wrong, and these actions are in violation of our dearest, and most important principles.

Once more this is emotional hyperbole and hardly substantive. I am always amused when people claim they voted for Bush as if it gives their farcical arguments some form of credibility.

Yes, that terrible Bush; how dare him take his duty as President and protection of Americans so damned serious!

One thing is certain though; if there is another attack, and yes they will continue to try and it only takes ONE time for success, Obama and the Democrats OWN it.

Nothing they are doing can even be construed as in the interests of the safety of our citizens and this nation. Their actions and divisive partisan rhetoric put our citizens at great risk, our troops in great risk and the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan at great risk.

Osama was right; the American people do not have the stomach or the will to win this fight and he will use our own internal divisive partisanship to succeed where he knows he can’t on the field of battle.
 
I hate to break it to you, TD, but I have it on good authority, from my sister in law who served for 3 years there, that GITMO is, in fact, U.S. soil.

:rofl

Well her "authority" would be INCORRECT then wouldn't it? :2wave:

"There is a difference between territorial jurisdiction and sovereignty," writes US District Judge Howard Matz in his decision. "The court finds that Guantanamo Bay is NOT within the sovereign territory of the United States."
 
Last edited:
Once again, we are NOT talking about “civil liberties” here. Where in any of the FACTS are we dealing with “civil liberties?” When did NON-UNIFORMED ENYMY COMBATANTS who are captured on foreign soil suddenly obtain these “civil liberties?”

Holding people without trial or charge is a violation of our core values.


I notice you are referring to techniques that were used illegally by a select few who then were prosecuted for it.

I notice that you are talking inaccurately here.

Once again, your lack of FACTS to support the farcical assertion that illegalities occurred and personal opinions are hardly a substitute for the facts in this case.

Your lack of research isn't my failure.

Read it and weep:

Soufan: CIA torture actually hindered our intelligence gathering | Salon News


This isn’t about being scared; this is about an administration and President who took their primary duty to protect American lives serious in the aftermath of 9-11.

Their primary duty is to uphold the constitution of the U.S. THAT IS THEIR PRIMARY F'ING DUTY. That's what they swore to do.

Fail.

No core principles were violated.

Detention without trial or even being charged with a crime. Violation of the protocols against torture that were passed into U.S. Law under the Reagan Administration.

Now you are entering into farcical hyperbole when you suggest that the previous Administration or ANY for that matter could be “tyrannical.” Another EMOTION filled argument with little substance.

Holding suspects without trial, and without charge, is tyrannical. Shackling individuals, in diapers, in physical pain, without access to legal counsel, is tyrannical. I think that's sufficient.

Yes, that terrible Bush; how dare him take his duty as President and protection of Americans so damned serious!

His primary duty was to uphold U.S. law and the constitution. He failed to do so.


One thing is certain though; if there is another attack, and yes they will continue to try and it only takes ONE time for success, Obama and the Democrats OWN it.

Fear-mongering and hyperbole don't manipulate my emotions like they do yours.

Osama was right; the American people do not have the stomach or the will to win this fight and he will use our own internal divisive partisanship to succeed where he knows he can’t on the field of battle.

This American has the stomach to risk being attacked by terrorists in order to maintain our free, open, and democratic society. It's the risk involved with freedom.

So tell me, who's the real coward here?
 
Well her "authority" would be INCORRECT then wouldn't it? :2wave:

"There is a difference between territorial jurisdiction and sovereignty," writes US District Judge Howard Matz in his decision. "The court finds that Guantanamo Bay is NOT within the sovereign territory of the United States."

In December 2003, the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Matz, and stated that he did not have the authority to hear this case.
 
For someone who claims they are in law enforcement, your ability to deal with the FACTS of this case is weak at best. It is pretty obvious you’re more guided by your emotions than the FACTS.

Once again, we are NOT talking about “civil liberties” here. Where in any of the FACTS are we dealing with “civil liberties?” When did NON-UNIFORMED ENYMY COMBATANTS who are captured on foreign soil suddenly obtain these “civil liberties?”





I notice you are referring to techniques that were used illegally by a select few who then were prosecuted for it.

Certainly you are not expecting me to fall for this Lerxst like red herring are you?



Once again, your lack of FACTS to support the farcical assertion that illegalities occurred and personal opinions are hardly a substitute for the facts in this case.



This isn’t about being scared; this is about an administration and President who took their primary duty to protect American lives serious in the aftermath of 9-11.


No core principles were violated. Again, your personal opinions do not make a good substitute for the FACTS. I gave you the definition of torture, and you have still not addressed how these enhanced methods can be intellectually connected to the definition of torture or the intellectual requirements of torture.



I never claimed you were; but you argue like one in many instances. You allow your emotional state to interfere with common sense and dealing with the FACTS.



Now you are entering into farcical hyperbole when you suggest that the previous Administration or ANY for that matter could be “tyrannical.” Another EMOTION filled argument with little substance.



Once more this is emotional hyperbole and hardly substantive. I am always amused when people claim they voted for Bush as if it gives their farcical arguments some form of credibility.

Yes, that terrible Bush; how dare him take his duty as President and protection of Americans so damned serious!

One thing is certain though; if there is another attack, and yes they will continue to try and it only takes ONE time for success, Obama and the Democrats OWN it.

Nothing they are doing can even be construed as in the interests of the safety of our citizens and this nation. Their actions and divisive partisan rhetoric put our citizens at great risk, our troops in great risk and the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan at great risk.

Osama was right; the American people do not have the stomach or the will to win this fight and he will use our own internal divisive partisanship to succeed where he knows he can’t on the field of battle.

I'd like some blue cheese dressing, cracked pepper, and sesame seeds please. Hold the farcical and hyperbole, it gives me gas.
 
Well her "authority" would be INCORRECT then wouldn't it? :2wave:

"There is a difference between territorial jurisdiction and sovereignty," writes US District Judge Howard Matz in his decision. "The court finds that Guantanamo Bay is NOT within the sovereign territory of the United States."

So it's Not sovereign territory?

The international treaties we signed says.

"The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”

[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30"

The diehard torture deniers are shaking in their shoes....
 
That's exactly what I've been saying. How exactly claim the moral high ground when we engage in such activities?
What exactly does this 'oh so elusive and subjective goal of attaining the "moral high ground" accomplish?
I know a lot of people use 9/11 as an excuse and say that it was a game changer, but it's a slippery slope. When we get rid of a lot of the core values that make us great, before long there is little to separate us from our enemies.
When we become a nation which acquiesces to the subjective moral views of the weak-kneed and cowardly then we hamstring ourselves and our future.
 
I'd like some blue cheese dressing, cracked pepper, and sesame seeds please. Hold the farcical and hyperbole, it gives me gas.

What kinda whine would you like with that?

Oh wait never mind I see TD brought it.
 
Your dishonesty is well known. That left wing blog I got much of my information from is the National Review Online. Here is the article. It is by Conservative blogger Jim Minzi. The National Review Online is well noted for its past stars - Namely William Kristol and William F. Buckley. Now before you start calling Jim Minzi, William Kristol, and William F. Buckley Liberal bloggers, I suggest you read the article.

His name is Jim Manzi who founded Lotus Development and that article is a blog piece of his OPINION and contains nothing any more factual than your farcical attempts to suggest we are torturing people. Do you have anything to support your assertion that he is a “Conservative” or a “Republican?” And is it also your desperate contention that he speaks for the Conservative movement as a blogger in the “Corner” of the National Review or even represents the views of the National Review?

REALLY?

I do see he did some fundraising “Manzi made a headlines in 1999 as a high-profile fundraiser for Presidential candidate Bill Bradley.” Wow, what credentials!


Again, you refuse to address the definition of torture; you continue on a whiney diatribe about the REAL topic of the thread and refuse to acknowledge the FACTS. Is it any wonder you feel like a rag doll being thrown about?

As for calling me a whiner, assinine, trite, and offensive, there is no room in this thread for that. Stop your god damn trolling. Your post has been reported.

I see you also have difficulty distinguishing REALITY from hyperbole. I claimed your ASSERTIONS were asinine, trite and offensive; which they are and which I supported in my statements. Something you never seem to do.

As for claiming there are whiners on the forum, are you desperately trying to suggest that that constitutes a rule violation? You’re kidding me right?

Once more we see another of your whiney desperate attempts to avoid having your assertions slapped back into your face and proven to be farcical by your diatribes about not addressing the thread topic and stretch to claim you are somehow being personally insulted. The only thing insulting here are your ideas and arguments which are intellectually insulting.

Now aside from you quoting a BLOGGER on a BLOG site, what part of my comments are non-factual? Got substance Dan?

Nothing I state here is dishonest Dan, but much of what you post certainly is either dishonest, or requires the willful suspension of disbelief and seldom involves you having a creative though of your own.

Now tell me Dan, how does Water-boarding meet the definition of torture; let’s have a REAL debate rather than your reliance and plagiarism of a bloggers views.

P.S. You know you are on a roll when GoldenDog thanks you. :rofl
 
What exactly does this 'oh so elusive and subjective goal of attaining the "moral high ground" accomplish?.

1. It makes it more likely that the local populace in places like Iraq, those who AREN'T fleabag wannabe terrorists (aka, the overwhelming majority), will be receptive to our forces there.

2. It makes it less likely that said individuals will join organizations and attack our military personnel on the grounds that we look exactly like Saddam Hussein.

3. It makes it less likely that our military personnel will, in return, be tortured by our enemies, who can offer up our actions as justification for their own (what's good for the goose is good to the gander).

4. It helps us remain true to our national heritage and avoid the slippery slope of undermining core principles such as:

"All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..."

I know. I'm such a f'ing liberal, believing in this stuff.
 
So it's Not sovereign territory?

The international treaties we signed says.

"The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”

[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30"

The diehard torture deniers are shaking in their shoes....

What part of this do you continue to NOT get dude?

"Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”

Please show how the methods that were used even come CLOSE to this definition; and please, because you say so doesn't cut it. :roll:
 
What part of this do you continue to NOT get dude?

"Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”

Please show how the methods that were used even come CLOSE to this definition; and please, because you say so doesn't cut it. :roll:

11 days isn't prolonged?
 
What exactly does this 'oh so elusive and subjective goal of attaining the "moral high ground" accomplish?

Well, for one we can say that we are better than our enemies.

When we become a nation which acquiesces to the subjective moral views of the weak-kneed and cowardly then we hamstring ourselves and our future.

So people are weak because they want to sustain the core values that make our country great?
 
Back
Top Bottom