• 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!

The Christmas attack interrogation

Maybe not, but I have seen police interrogations last longer than 50 minutes. Are you really trying to say that it is acceptable for Obama's lackey, Holder to just step in and make that decision without so much as a consult with Homeland Security? It's amateur.


j-mac
No. Read upthread.
 
But who he talked to.....may not pick up on intel one could gather, a proper interrogation by a trained team....the type Obama promised us he'd use...would certainly have resulted in you beginning this sentence with some other word than just "seems."



People would like to find out what he knows, turn him over to military interests who are on the ground right now fighting this war.



Wouldn't we all rather have a much much more informed, more aware, and more trained individual come to this conclusion? If he spent time in Yemen and was facilitated by al-Qaeda...this the President admits....I don't think those of us here on the outside can determine "not likely much more we can learn."

Your not anywhere near qualified to make that assessment. Sorry.

It's not that complicated. He's not Maxwell Smart let alone 007. There just isn't likely much he'd even be able to give. And as people were there when he talked, capable of relaying information, I see no reason for concern.
 
And who decides where the situation warrants brutality?
The domestic authority of the jurisdiction within which the threat is situated, after being advised from the party who developed the intelligence.
 
The domestic authority of the jurisdiction within which the threat is situated, after being advised from the party who developed the intelligence.

So...an Obama's CIA gathers intel and discovers the locale of a one Osama Bin Laden hiding in Pakistan.....we leave the decision to use violent brutality to Pakistani authoirities where the threat is situated?
 
So...an Obama's CIA gathers intel and discovers the locale of a one Osama Bin Laden hiding in Pakistan.....we leave the decision to use violent brutality to Pakistani authoirities where the threat is situated?
Since it is Pakistan, yes. Pakistan is a sovereign state, last I checked.
 
Since it is Pakistan, yes. Pakistan is a sovereign state, last I checked.

So...the same applies for Afghanistan...last I checked they were a sovereign state as well?
 
Not since we toppled their government.

So....after 9-11 and before we toppled their government, your suggestion is that....like Pakistan...we....in your words now...leave brutality decisions to "the domestic authority of the jurisdiction within which the threat is situated" in Afghanistan as well.

Meaning the Taliban would have made this decision on whehter we're to use brutality or not?
 
Last edited:
An occupied one as well.

On specific authorization where "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
 
So....after 9-11 and before we toppled their government, your suggestion is that....like Pakistan...we....in your words now...leave brutality decisions to "the domestic authority of the jurisdiction within which the threat is situated."

Meaning the Taliban would have made this decision on whehter we're to use brutality or not?
That is a different story, as the Taliban was involved in an attack upon the US. Force was used upon us, therefore we respond in kind.
 
On specific authorization where "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Meaningless to the point. The fact is they are occupied.
 
That is a different story, as the Taliban was involved in an attack upon the US. Force was used upon us, therefore we respond in kind.

The Taliban attacked us...or al-Qaeda?
 
By a multi-national force, should they get permission to use brutality from the sitting Afghan government?

Still occupied. As long as they are occupiers, Afghanistan is not fully sovereign. And as brutality is against our laws, we shouldn't be considering it at all.
 
Do you really want me to go through the connections for you, because I'm not going to.

Sir...you may draw connections between the Yemen government and our underwear terrorist. You may likewise draw connections between the Saudi government and the attackers on 9-11. More of the attackers were Saudi....than Afghan or Taliban. You can draw connections between many governments and terrorist activity, you just told me however....the decision to use brutality must come from the domestic authority.

Connect all you'd like, al-Qaeda...not the Taliban attacked us on 9-11. It was OBL's Fatwa(he is Saudi), most of the hijackers Saudi or from Yemen or the UAE...Atta was an Egyptian.

Is your position Sir consistent or not. The decision to act brutally should remain with domestic authorities....or not? IF your answer is not, then we make these decisions, the domestic authority irrelevant. If your answer is yes, your policy require we consult the Taliban before acting on Afghanistan. Correct?
 
And as brutality is against our laws, we shouldn't be considering it at all.

But, you supported going right in after 9-11 and brutally killing or capturing Bin Laden and then told me that would have a positive effect.

:Oopsie
 
Sir...you may draw connections between the Yemen government and our underwear terrorist. You may likewise draw connections between the Saudi government and the attackers on 9-11. More of the attackers were Saudi....than Afghan or Taliban. You can draw connections between many governments and terrorist activity, you just told me however....the decision to use brutality must come from the domestic authority.

Connect all you'd like, al-Qaeda...not the Taliban attacked us on 9-11. It was OBL's Fatwa(he is Saudi), most of the hijackers Saudi or from Yemen or the UAE...Atta was an Egyptian.
The Taliban/al Qaeda connection was much stronger than the other connections, obviously. Your comparisons are ridiculously different and you know it. Don't be obtuse on top of your ridiculous bombast, m'kay?
Is your position Sir consistent or not. The decision to act brutally should remain with domestic authorities....or not? IF your answer is not, then we make these decisions, the domestic authority irrelevant. If your answer is yes, your policy require we consult the Taliban before acting on Afghanistan. Correct?
False dichotomy. My position is clear and consistent, and has been stated above. If you cannot understand it, then I suggest you re-read the thread.
 
He would confess to being the Easter Bunny then. Would that really be helpful?


Just curious as to what we are getting in the form of intel now? Considering that I am paying for the terrorists attorney that is advising him to clam up....

You have no clue as to what he would have given up or not, and to propose that you do is disingenuous to the extreme.


j-mac
 
nah, I'll continue to take it up with liberal progressives that try and hide behind fairness, and compassion as their torch and winds be damned over what that does to this nation. Thanks.


j-mac
Yeah, stupid rights ain't for them brown people anyway, just for us red-blooded Americans. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom