OT - AP: U.S. Seeks to Silence Terror Suspect

[NoMyths]

The Bush administration is now seeking to bar a terrorism suspect from speaking to his attorney. Their reason? Because he might reveal the secret details of the interrogations heunderwent in a secret CIA prison.

Link: ABC News: U.S. Seeks to Silence Terror Suspect (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2628673&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

Full Text:
AP: U.S. Seeks to Silence Terror Suspect
U.S.: Detainee Shouldn't Be Allowed to Tell Attorney About CIA's Interrogation Techniques

By MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON Nov 4, 2006 (AP)— A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques.

Human rights groups have questioned the CIA's methods for questioning suspects, especially following the passage of a bill last month that authorized the use of harsh but undefined interrogation tactics.

In recently filed court documents, the Justice Department said those methods, along with the locations of the CIA's network of prisons, are among the nation's most sensitive secrets. Prisoners who spent time in those prisons should not be allowed to disclose that information, even to a lawyer, the government said.

"Improper disclosure of other operational details, such as interrogation methods, could also enable terrorist organizations and operatives to adapt their training to counter such methods, thereby obstructing the CIA's ability to obtain vital intelligence that could disrupt future planned terrorist attacks," the Justice Department wrote.

The documents, which were first reported by The Washington Post, were filed in opposition to a request that terror suspect Majid Khan should be given access to an attorney. Khan, 26, immigrated from Pakistan and graduated high school in Maryland.

According to documents filed on his behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Khan was arrested in Pakistan in 2003. During more than three years in CIA custody, Khan was subjected to interrogation techniques that defense attorneys suggest amounted to torture.

President Bush acknowledged the existence of the CIA system in September and transferred Khan and 13 other prisoners designated as "terrorist leaders" to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Under a law passed last month, they are to be tried before special military commissions and may not have access to civilian courts.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is among several advocacy groups challenging that law. They say the Constitution guarantees prisoners a right to challenge their detention.

The Justice Department argues that civilian courts no longer have jurisdiction to intervene in the case. They say keeping details about the CIA program secret is essential because national security is at stake.

"Information obtained through the program has provided the United States with one of the most useful tools in combating terrorist threats to the national security," the government argued in court documents.

"It has shed light on probable targets and likely methods for attacks on the United States, has led to the disruption of terrorist plots against the United States and its allies, and has gathered information that has played a role in the capture and questioning of senior al-Qaida operatives," it said.

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, responded in court documents Friday that there is no evidence Khan has classified information. Gutierrez accused the administration of using national secrecy concerns to "conceal illegal or embarrassing executive conduct."

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has not indicated when he will rule.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm impressed. I wouldn't have thought of that off hand.

[Dutch]

Smart.

[cartman]

So much for the view of the US being the shining beacon for the rest of the world to follow. They still are going to follow, using this as an example. Now, anytime anyone is arrested, not told what their charges are, and denied any contact with a lawyer, they can point to the US example they are following.

I'm all for prosecuting these guys, but why are the powers that be so afraid of being wrong on individual cases? Instead of running these trials the way others have run throughout history, they are running everything in the shadows and trying to avoid any oversight at all. If they are sure that these guys are as bad as they say they are, it shouldn't be a problem to have a Nuremburg type event to try them.

[JPhillips]

What training could a terrorist receive that would make waterboarding less effective? Or sleep deprivation? Or stress positions? As always, this has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with covering up things they don't want to debate.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

In recently filed court documents, the Justice Department said those methods, along with the locations of the CIA's network of prisons, are among the nation's most sensitive secrets. Prisoners who spent time in those prisons should not be allowed to disclose that information, even to a lawyer, the government said.

"Improper disclosure of other operational details, such as interrogation methods, could also enable terrorist organizations and operatives to adapt their training to counter such methods, thereby obstructing the CIA's ability to obtain vital intelligence that could disrupt future planned terrorist attacks," the Justice Department wrote.

A couple of things. First, how do these prisoners know where the secret prisons are? I'm assuming that they are kept in solitary cells while in secret prisons and are transported without knowing where they are or where they're going. So how could they have any idea if they're in Germany, Spain, or even Georgia?

Second, how does letting knowledge of your interrogation tactics known hinder their effectiveness? Does it really make a difference if you know that you're going to have electrodes attached to your genitals? Is that going to stop you from spilling your guts when the juice gets turned on? I've never been tortured, um, I mean interrogated by the CIA, so I honestly don't know. I just can't picture how you can ever really prepare yourself for such techniques.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Second, how does letting knowledge of your interrogation tactics known hinder their effectiveness?

Preparation for likely interrogation techniques has been around for at least 50+ years. It isn't foolproof by any means, but it would tend to enhance the ability to resist, at least extending the amount of resistance possible.

[Peregrine]

Well the United States has the best technology in the world, if they learn to resist what we've got, I'm sure we can use our best scientists to come up with something new...I know, how about some kind of metal coffin full of spikes?

[WVUFAN]

Terrorists should not have the constitutional rights citizens do.

I don't have a problem with what the administration is doing in this instance.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Terrorists should not have the constitutional rights citizens do.

I don't have a problem with what the administration is doing in this instance.

So you wouldn't have a problem with this if you or someone you loved was determined to be terrorist?

[WVUFAN]

I'm an American, and hense have rights under the Constitution. This "suspect" isn't.

That's the difference.

Why are you defending someone who would want nothing more than to kill you, and bashing those who are trying to get information to help defend this country? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

One of the problems of this country is the concern we feel for criminals at the expense of the rest of us.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I'm an American, and hense have rights under the Constitution. This "suspect" isn't.

That's the difference.

Why are you defending someone who would want nothing more than to kill you, and bashing those who are trying to get information to help defend this country? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

One of the problems of this country is the concern we feel for criminals at the expense of the rest of us.

What happens if a foreigner mugs someone in this country? Aren't they entitled to representation in our courts?

Do serial killers not get their day in court? Don't they want nothing more than to kill us?

[cartman]

I'm an American, and hense have rights under the Constitution. This "suspect" isn't.

That's the difference.

Why are you defending someone who would want nothing more than to kill you, and bashing those who are trying to get information to help defend this country? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

One of the problems of this country is the concern we feel for criminals at the expense of the rest of us.

It's hard to determine if someone is a criminal if you don't even know what they are accused of. Just because a party accuses someone of being a criminal doesn't make them one. Even if "The Decider" says so.

As for the part about being an American and having rights, with the recent legislation passed, if you are declared an "enemy combatant", those rights are tossed out the window and you are in the same boat as these guys.

As I said, I'm all for prosecuting these guys. But if these methods were used on an American in the custody of another country, we'd be screaming at the top of our lungs against it. If there isn't any doubt about the guilt of these guys, why not have the Nuremburg type tribunal? That's how this kind of stuff has been handled before, and it is not covered by the Constitution, but there are still International Law issues that have to be taken into account. It's the best of everything. We show why this person is a criminal and needs to be detained, and the evidence is presented against them, and the verdict is generally respected.

[Celeval]

One of the problems of this country is the concern we feel for criminals at the expense of the rest of us.

One of the great things about this country is the fact that no-one is a criminal until proven to be so.

[Glengoyne]

I don't see this attempt working out for the administration. The best they can realisticly hope for is to muzzle the attorney. That seems reasonable to me. It is sensitive information, but I really don't see this working out for the admin.

[WVUFAN]

What happens if a foreigner mugs someone in this country? Aren't they entitled to representation in our courts?

Probably. However, if I had my say, no. They would be deported. No appeals, no second chances.


Do serial killers not get their day in court? Don't they want nothing more than to kill us?

Yes, and if they are citizens they are entitled to a trial. I don't agree there should be the number of appeals they get. If they are convicted, they should get one appeal, judged quickly and put of of our misery.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I don't agree there should be the number of appeals they get. If they are convicted, they should get one appeal, judged quickly and put of of our misery.

Would you be saying the same thing if you were facing murder charges?

[WVUFAN]

[quote]

As I said, I'm all for prosecuting these guys. But if these methods were used on an American in the custody of another country, we'd be screaming at the top of our lungs against it.

I've said this before, and I still believe it -- an agreement is not valid when only one side abides by it (as in the case of the Geneva Convention). The Allied side are the ONLY ONES that even attempt to abide by the Geneva Convention. It's simply does not work anymore.

The US HAS to have means to extract information from known terrorists to protect this country. We're not SLOWLY slicing off heads like they are (I've seen the Pearl video, they don't chop, they slice). We don't terrorize people on a daily basis (they do). What the bleeding hearts are calling "torture" is nothing compared to what they do.

The argument that says we are better because we don't torture is a interesting fantasy that just doesn't fly in reality. If the means we extract information needs to be protected, so be it.

I do not care two cents of the lives of those terrorists. Whatever we need to do to get the information out of them, I'm all for it.


If there isn't any doubt about the guilt of these guys, why not have the Nuremburg type tribunal? That's how this kind of stuff has been handled before, and it is not covered by the Constitution, but there are still International Law issues that have to be taken into account. It's the best of everything. We show why this person is a criminal and needs to be detained, and the evidence is presented against them, and the verdict is generally respected.


I'm fine with that, as long as we are the ones presiding over the tribunal. I do not trust other countries (like France, Germany) to fairly judge.

[WVUFAN]

Would you be saying the same thing if you were facing murder charges?

Having never faced murder charges, I wouldn't know.

Conversely, if you had a loved one murdered, would you want the murderer to get multiple appeals?

My point is the wrong person is getting the benefit -- instead of the victim or the family of the victim getting priority and all the "rights", it's the criminal. It SHOULD be the opposite.

[Crapshoot]

Having never faced murder charges, I wouldn't know.

Conversely, if you had a loved one murdered, would you want the murderer to get multiple appeals?

My point is the wrong person is getting the benefit -- instead of the victim or the family of the victim getting priority and all the "rights", it's the criminal. It SHOULD be the opposite.


What part of the "suspect" part don't you get?

[WVUFAN]

What part of the "suspect" part don't you get?

What part of "victim" don't you get?

I never said suspects shouldn't get a trial. Once they are convicted, though, that should be it. That includes the terrorists ... er, "terrorist suspects" locked up right now.

People look at things from the perspective that "maybe we got the wrong person", from the viewpoint of the "suspect". I look at it from the victim's standpoint. They are the ones that deserves the attention and the concern of the citizens, not the criminal.

The rights of the victim supercedes the rights of the criminal.

[cartman]

Since when did we start advocating Napoleonic Law, where you are guilty until proven innocent?

I think this is what is the gist of the issue. No one I've seen post so far is against punishing those who have been found to have committed terrorist acts. What I see people protesting is the concept of simply being detained as being the same as being found guilty of committing terrorist acts.

[Klinglerware]

If the difference between "suspect" and "criminal" cannot be comprehended, then I'm not sure if there is anything more to say here.

[Anthony]

i saw we kill them all. if it turns out they were innocent we can always write a letter of apology to their families.

[Galaxy]

If the difference between "suspect" and "criminal" cannot be comprehended, then I'm not sure if there is anything more to say here.

Spot on.

[molson]

A trial for every terrorist suspect is not practical. Hell, a trial for every domestic misdemeanor suspect is not practical. That's why we just lock most criminals up once they've been arrested, and once they've been in there long enough, they plead guilty, get credit for the time they served, and then go home and commit more crimes.

[WVUFAN]

If the difference between "suspect" and "criminal" cannot be comprehended, then I'm not sure if there is anything more to say here.

Then I guess there's nothing more to say here. I consider EVERY SINGLE terrorist in prison in Cuba or in the secret Prisons an enemy of the United States, and unworthy of any privilage or right that a US citizen may be entitled to.

Just my opinion.

[albionmoonlight]

What's wrong with giving him an attorney with Top Secret clearance? Then tell the attorney what kinds of things he is not allowed to reveal. It's not like this is the first suspected criminal who has access to information that the people in charge like to keep secret. Courts deal with stuff all of the time that has to be in sealed records.

[st.cronin]

Good Lord, Jamarcus Russell is strong.

haha wrong thread

[Dutch]

What's wrong with giving him an attorney with Top Secret clearance? Then tell the attorney what kinds of things he is not allowed to reveal. It's not like this is the first suspected criminal who has access to information that the people in charge like to keep secret. Courts deal with stuff all of the time that has to be in sealed records.

I seriously doubt you'd need an attorney with a top secret clearance. Any clearance would do, and any military attorney is bound to at least hold a secret clearance.

But the civilian attorney's (anti-govt group) filing this protest on the terrorist's behalf would surely protest any military attorney support as unsatisfactory.

[Flasch186]

Conversely, if you had a loved one murdered, would you want the murderer to get multiple appeals?



yes, I would want to make absolute sure that the right person is behind bars, lest G-D be mad at me for supporting the incarceration of the wrong man or woman....my G-D works both ways. :D

It is not FREEDOM that allows the people in "power", whatever that means, to "suspect" whomever they choose and have them be guilty, without ever being able to defend themselves in court. It is not FREEDOM that allows a power to "remove" people from their lives, to disappear with no recourse to prove that they are innocent, that is NOT the FREEDOM we are fighting for... It is also NOT UN-patriotic to believe that all human beings are entitled to certain unalienable rights including those that revolve around the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is also a foregone conclusion that a year ago when I said that since we're claiming the moral high ground in this war, that we damn sure better walk the talk, that that claim is gone and the rest of the world does NOT view us as carrying the torch of morality in this battle....which is a total and complete shame. an abomination because I know that we are the "good" in this battle against Al Qaeda as much as they think that they are the "good"...I want our good to win, whatever that means.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Then I guess there's nothing more to say here. I consider EVERY SINGLE terrorist in prison in Cuba or in the secret Prisons an enemy of the United States, and unworthy of any privilage or right that a US citizen may be entitled to.

Just my opinion.

Hmm, apart from not understanding the difference between a suspect and a criminal, you also don't understand the difference between a detainee and a terrorist. Not everyone in Cuba is a "terrorist," some were people picked up in broad sweep searches. I'm sure you are aware that after several years in Cuba, many were finally released free with no charges made against them.

Of course, you probably feel that's ok for those who got out, hell they got out didn't they? -- missing out on 2-4 years of your life while living in a small cell and being subjected to "alternative interrogation methods" is no big deal.

Anyways, as pointed out, with the different viewpoints, this debate is pointless.

As for the main point of this thread, more of the same. I'm waiting desperately for Tuesday.

[Dutch]

Hmm, apart from not understanding the difference between a suspect and a criminal, you also don't understand the difference between a detainee and a terrorist. Not everyone in Cuba is a "terrorist," some were people picked up in broad sweep searches. I'm sure you are aware that after several years in Cuba, many were finally released free with no charges made against them.

Of course, you probably feel that's ok for those who got out, hell they got out didn't they? -- missing out on 2-4 years of your life while living in a small cell and being subjected to "alternative interrogation methods" is no big deal.

I'm glad those guys got out since they didn't do anything. But war has never been an exact science. It's probably fair to point out that the US military gives a pretty good effort in getting it as right as possible when picking up battlefield prisoners. But that's good news, doesn't sell--and tragically--eventually forgotten.

[flere-imsaho]

Then I guess there's nothing more to say here. I consider EVERY SINGLE terrorist in prison in Cuba or in the secret Prisons an enemy of the United States, and unworthy of any privilage or right that a US citizen may be entitled to.

Does that include the guys in Guantanamo who were later found to be actual farmers in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[Flasch186]

I'm glad those guys got out since they didn't do anything. But war has never been an exact science. It's probably fair to point out that the US military gives a pretty good effort in getting it as right as possible when picking up battlefield prisoners. But that's good news, doesn't sell--and tragically--eventually forgotten.

well i think the administration has painted their own picture there.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I never said suspects shouldn't get a trial. Once they are convicted, though, that should be it.

Yeah, because our legal system is so perfect it has never convicted someone who was innocent. :rolleyes:

[Dutch]

well i think the administration has painted their own picture there.

They may have painted a picture, but it's behind that big-assed AP billboard on I-95.

[Flasch186]

They may have painted a picture, but it's behind that big-assed AP billboard on I-95.

Full circle to the liberal media bias....well done Dutch, I dont know how you do it, but the penchant to point the finger everywhere else other than you know where, is a talent.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

The US HAS to have means to extract information from known terrorists to protect this country. We're not SLOWLY slicing off heads like they are (I've seen the Pearl video, they don't chop, they slice). We don't terrorize people on a daily basis (they do). What the bleeding hearts are calling "torture" is nothing compared to what they do.

Are there different levels of torture like there are murder? Should we consider beheading First Degree Torture and waterboarding Second Degree Torture? No matter what you want to call it, though, it's still torture.

[WVUFAN]

Yeah, because our legal system is so perfect it has never convicted someone who was innocent. :rolleyes:

We've also convicted many, many GUILTY people as well. One innocent person convicted doesn't invalidate all the successes.

[WVUFAN]

Are there different levels of torture like there are murder? Should we consider beheading First Degree Torture and waterboarding Second Degree Torture? No matter what you want to call it, though, it's still torture.

Dola -- Not really. From what I've read of what we do to terrorists, I would not call it torture, not in the way many people are thinking. This isn't "Hostel" territory here, where we cut off fingers or break bones, we're talking sleep deprivation, stress positions, ect.

It seems some of you want us to ask nicely where the terrorist cells are, and when they refuse, we smile and simply take them back to their air conditioned rooms.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

We've also convicted many, many GUILTY people as well. One innocent person convicted doesn't invalidate all the successes.

Oh, if only it were just one innocent person wrongly convicted.

The system is set up to help catch when someone is convicted incorrectly, thus all the appeals. It might be costly and time consuming, but it sure makes me feel better about the system that there are several chances to make sure the decision is correct. One innocent person in prison (or even worse, put to death) is one person too many.

You might see it as having too much concern for the criminal's rights over the victim, but I see it as having concern for my rights. The same goes for the supposed terrorists. I could care less about their rights, but this whole issue concerns my rights. Who's to say that the day won't come where I'm picked up and accused of being a terrorist? Or someone in my family? Or even you and your family?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Dola -- Not really. From what I've read of what we do to terrorists, I would not call it torture, not in the way many people are thinking. This isn't "Hostel" territory here, where we cut off fingers or break bones, we're talking sleep deprivation, stress positions, ect.

It seems some of you want us to ask nicely where the terrorist cells are, and when they refuse, we smile and simply take them back to their air conditioned rooms.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

Now, do we let our police forces use these techniques while interrogating a suspect? No, because they're considered forms of torture.

[WVUFAN]

Now, do we let our police forces use these techniques while interrogating a suspect? No, because they're considered forms of torture.

Again, these are not American citizens, and are not due the same rights as us. They are PRISONERS OF WAR.

I don't have a single bit of problem with any of those tactics. I suppose you don't think we should use any interrogation techniques at all. We'd never get any information that way.

The sooner people realize this is a war, the better things will be. We have NEVER treated prisoners of war the same as american citizens when it comes to crimes.

[Glengoyne]

Now, do we let our police forces use these techniques while interrogating a suspect? No, because they're considered forms of torture.

While I'd readilly agree to call the things described above as coercion, I'm not really all that compelled to call them torture.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Again, these are not American citizen, and are not due the same rights as us. They are PRISONERS OF WAR.

I don't have a single bit of problem with any of those tactics. I suppose you don't think we should use any interrogation techniques at all. We'd never get any information that way.

The sooner people realize this is a war, the better things will be. We have NEVER treated prisoners of war the same as american citizens when it comes to crimes.

Prisoners of war are protected from torture. They might not have the same rights as U.S. citizens, but they do have rights.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

While I'd readilly agree to call the things described above as coercion, I'm not really all that compelled to call them torture.

You're fine with water boarding? Or being forced to stand on your feet for almost two days? Or open-handed slaps? That's all fine to you? So when the police start using these methods you won't object?

[WVUFAN]

You're fine with water boarding? Or being forced to stand on your feet for almost two days? Or open-handed slaps? That's all fine to you? So when the police start using these methods you won't object?

I'm fine with using those techniques against prisoners of war.

Seriously, what would you use to retrieve information?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Again, these are not American citizens, and are not due the same rights as us. They are PRISONERS OF WAR.

I don't have a single bit of problem with any of those tactics. I suppose you don't think we should use any interrogation techniques at all. We'd never get any information that way.

The sooner people realize this is a war, the better things will be. We have NEVER treated prisoners of war the same as american citizens when it comes to crimes.

Have you heard of human rights? I guess under your theory, we may as well just shoot them afterwards because they aren't American citizens. Do you get the idea ever that many are not prisoners of war? That many who were tortured were actually released. They were innocent. Do you know that many professional interrogators state that you don't get reliable information from this kind of interrogation -- the captive will say anything.

This is pointless.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I'm fine with using those techniques against prisoners of war.

Do you object to the terrorists that torture U.S. soldiers? What if they're just trying to get information, too?

Seriously, what would you use to retrieve information?

I'm not in the intelligence field, so I don't know what other means there are out there, but there are obviously alternative means to gathering information.

[WVUFAN]

Have you heard of human rights? I guess under your theory, we may as well just shoot them afterwards because they aren't American citizens.

I'm fine with that, too, if it gets the info we need.


Do you get the idea ever that many are not prisoners of war? That many who were tortured were actually released. They were innocent. Do you know that many professional interrogators state that you don't get reliable information from this kind of interrogation -- the captive will say anything.

This is pointless.

You're right ... it is pointless. Good thing we have an administration that recognizes the need for tactics like this to get information. If Gore or Kerry were in office, we'd be giving terrorists Perrier and talking about their feelings.

[Flasch186]

wow, just, wow

[WVUFAN]

Do you object to the terrorists that torture U.S. soldiers? What if they're just trying to get information, too?



Again with the "we're better because we don't employ the same techniques as they do" argument.

Listen, I don't believe we've beheaded prisoners of war. We do treat them MUCH better than they us. Personally, I'm all for using radical treatments to get the info we need, and utilize aspects of their religion to do it.


I'm not in the intelligence field, so I don't know what other means there are out there, but there are obviously alternative means to gathering information.

Bullshit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Seriously, what would you use to retrieve information?

Well, we could threaten to carpet bomb them with liberals. We've got plenty to spare. But that probably wouldn't work, since they would know how to handle them, wouldn't really serve as much of a threat.

Wait. I know.

We could threaten to hold a meeting to consider a resolution that would call for consideration of tough UN sanctions at some point in the future.

Works everytime.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Again with the "we're better because we don't employ the same techniques as they do" argument.

You don't think we are better than them?

We do treat them MUCH better than they us. Personally, I'm all for using radical treatments to get the info we need, and utilize aspect of their religion to do it.

Yeah, I hear Gitmo is a real Club Med. If you don't have a problem with us using whatever means necessary to get information, you must not have any problem with them doing the same thing, right? If it's good enough for us, it must be good enough for everyone else.

Bullshit.

What are you calling BS? My claim that I'm not in the intelligence field (it's true, I'm not) or the fact that there are alternative methods to getting intelligence? If it's the latter, torture has been outlawed for, well, quite a long time now. And we've fought quite a few wars. Did we use torture during those wars to get intelligence? If not, how did we ever manage to win?

[Flasch186]

.Rejecting torture does not mean forgoing effective interrogations of terrorist suspects. Patient, skillful, professional interrogations obtain critical information without relying on cruelty or inhuman or degrading treatment. Indeed, most seasoned interrogators recognize that torture is not only immoral and illegal, but ineffective and unnecessary as well. Given that people being tortured will say anything to stop the pain, the information yielded from torture is often false or of dubious reliability.

[molson]

Do people who think prisoners of war should be given Constitutional rights think this is true of every war, or merely one so indefinite as this one? Should the United States have given every German captured during WWII individual rights to protest their incarceration while the war was going on? (Because surely, some non-Nazis were imprisoned). There is NO practical way that can be done, unless we start drafting civilian lawyers into military service. Even if we appointed every suspected terrorist a public defender, how exactly would the public defender go about proving innocence in such a scenario? Do we send them off to do individual investigations in the suspects' home villages?

The system isn't perfect, just like our domestic criminal system isn't. People aren't truly "innocent until proven guilty" here - instead, the system is designed to arrest and charge only the very likely guilty (probable cause, etc.), and encourage these people to plead guilty as quickly as possible (pre-trial incarceration for the poor who can't afford bail, plea agreements).

I understand both sides of the torture argument, and I'm torn. But this constant outrage against prisoners of war not receiving due process rights is so insane that it must be politically motivated.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Well, we could threaten to carpet bomb them with liberals. We've got plenty to spare. But that probably wouldn't work, since they would know how to handle them, wouldn't really serve as much of a threat.

Oh, yes. All us "liberals" just love terrorists. We are all secretly agents of al-Qaeda and our master plan is to see the United States established as a Muslim state. That's why we are so up in arms over any loss of civil liberties. You know how us terrorists just love freedom.

We could threaten to hold a meeting to consider a resolution that would call for consideration of tough UN sanctions at some point in the future.

Works everytime.

And then we could just ignore said UN resolution since we obviously know better than the rest of the world.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Do people who think prisoners of war should be given Constitutional rights think this is true of every war, or merely one so indefinite as this one? Should the United States have given every German captured during WWII individual rights to protest their incarceration while the war was going on?

We didn't put German POWs on trial during WWII.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oh, yes. All us "liberals" just love terrorists. We are all secretly agents of al-Qaeda and our master plan is to see the United States established as a Muslim state. That's why we are so up in arms over any loss of civil liberties. You know how us terrorists just love freedom.

Nah, even I don't believe you're looking for a Muslim state. You just can't stand the existence of one that exhibits much in the way of common sense.

[molson]

We didn't put German POWs on trial during WWII.

I'm aware of that, my question is should we have, since people are now demanding due process for POWs of the current war.

[WVUFAN]

Yeah, I hear Gitmo is a real Club Med. If you don't have a problem with us using whatever means necessary to get information, you must not have any problem with them doing the same thing, right? If it's good enough for us, it must be good enough for everyone else.

It doesn't matter what we do, they will employ the same techniques -- they are torturing (the real kind) and killing their victims. Let's say the government suddenly reverses their decisions and start treating captives without interrogative techniques. We suddenly start giving them trials, give them access to lawyers, and treat them just like they were a American suspect in a crime. You know what will happen?

They're STILL gonna torture and kill their victims. No matter what we do, they're still gonna be the same. The only thing we're doing by "abiding by the rules" is handicapping ourselves, and making some liberals sleep better at night.

No thanks.


What are you calling BS? My claim that I'm not in the intelligence field (it's true, I'm not) or the fact that there are alternative methods to getting intelligence? If it's the latter, torture has been outlawed for, well, quite a long time now. And we've fought quite a few wars. Did we use torture during those wars to get intelligence? If not, how did we ever manage to win?

I have no doubt we used interrogation techniques MUCH worse in World War II to get information, so I'm calling BS on "alternative methods" that would be more effective.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Nah, even I don't believe you're looking for a Muslim state. You just can't stand the existence of one that exhibits much in the way of common sense.

Your form of common sense, perhaps. To me, it's common sense that torture doesn't give good information and that if you start allowing us to torture enemy combatants there is absolutely nothing from preventing anyone else from torturing us in the future. But I'm just crazy like that.

[WVUFAN]

Your form of common sense, perhaps. To me, it's common sense that torture doesn't give good information and that if you start allowing us to torture enemy combatants there is absolutely nothing from preventing anyone else from torturing us in the future. But I'm just crazy like that.

They already are torturing and killing us over there. Nothing HAS prevented them, or the Viet Cong, or the Chinese, or the Koreans, or the Germans and Japanese from using techniques not allowed via the Geneva Convention or any agreement prior to it.

In short, none of the enemies we have fought since before World War II has abided by any form of "agreement" of treatment of prisoners. The US and its allies are the only ones who have abided by them.

Now, that may tell you that we are the "good guys" and are better than our opponents. It tells me we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not employing techniques we could be to retrieve the information we need.

Again, I say: It's not an agreement when only one side abides by it.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I'm aware of that, my question is should we have, since people are now demanding due process for POWs of the current war.

What would we have charged them with? They were legal combatants and I don't think anyone would consider fighting for your country as a crime.

[WVUFAN]

What would we have charged them with? They were legal combatants and I don't think anyone would consider fighting for your country as a crime.

Hell, if that's the case, let's just let EVERYONE out of Gitmo. After all, they're only fighting for their country.

(shakes head)

EDIT: Ask John Kerry if he thinks fighting for your country a crime. After all, he accused over 50,000 Vietnam veterans of one.

[Samdari]

Then I guess there's nothing more to say here. I consider EVERY SINGLE terrorist in prison in Cuba or in the secret Prisons an enemy of the United States, and unworthy of any privilage or right that a US citizen may be entitled to.

Just my opinion.

Really?

What are there names? Also, please list the reasons you consider each individual to be an enemy of the United States.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Now, that may tell you that we are the "good guys" and are better than our opponents.

Bad WVU. You just cost yourself a couple of months of remedial indoctrination training.

You should know perfectly well that the Viet Cong and the Koreans were the good guys, heroic freedom fighters against their evil capitalistic opressors.

Bad WVU, bad I say.

[Flasch186]

why not abdicate our signing of the Geneva conventions then? you better learn to walk your talk or the rest of the world will think youre a hypocrite....oh wait.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

The only thing we're doing by "abiding by the rules" is handicapping ourselves, and making some liberals sleep better at night.

Let's suppose that the next president (well make him a Liberal since that is a dirty word around here) declares that anyone who owns a firearm is a terrorist. The CIA then goes through all the records and takes in everyone who has registered a gun. They are now held captive in secret prisons. They aren't allowed to challenge the claim that they are terrorist. They no longer have any rights. The CIA is free to do whatever they want to find out who else might have these now illegal weapons. If that means torture, so be it. Are you still okay with all this?

Oh, I know: It can't happen here. Not in America, where we value our freedoms so much. Except for in those nasty little instances where freedom gets in the way of our feeling safe. Then we're so quick to throw away all those freedoms we once held so dear.

[dawgfan]

Hell, if that's the case, let's just let EVERYONE out of Gitmo. After all, they're only fighting for their country.

(shakes head)
Wait, here's a crazy idea - if those held prisoner at Gitmo are terrorists, we could, you know, put them on trial and present evidence how they are dangerous and need to remain imprisoned.

[Flasch186]

Bad WVU. You just cost yourself a couple of months of remedial indoctrination training.

You should know perfectly well that the Viet Cong and the Koreans were the good guys, heroic freedom fighters against their evil capitalistic opressors.

Bad WVU, bad I say.

each side has their own rationalization and thinks theyre the "good"....even as an actor, when playing the role of a miscreant, you have to find the rationale, the justification for doing what you do, "why youre right for killing the babysitter.", etc. it isnt smart to think that they dont think of themselves as the "good" along with their supporters.....I believe that we are the good...I wish we'd walk the talk though...or change the talk then.

[WVUFAN]

why not abdicate our signing of the Geneva conventions then? you better learn to walk your talk rot he rest of the world will think youre a hypocrite....oh wait.

I'm all for that. I think less of the President for not doing so.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Hell, if that's the case, let's just let EVERYONE out of Gitmo. After all, they're only fighting for their country.

Um, I was talking about the Germans during WWII. Do you deny that Germans were fighting for their country? Just like how Americans were fighting for ours?

Terrorists are not fighting for any government. Hence the term illegal combatants. Since they are considered illegal they are due a trial to prove their guilt or innocence. That's the American way, isn't it?

[WVUFAN]

each side has their own rationalization and thinks theyre the "good"....even as an actor, when playing the role of a miscreant, you have to find the rationale, the justification for doing what you do, "why youre right for killing the babysitter.", etc. it isnt smart to think that they dont think of themselves as the "good" along with their supporters.....I believe that we are the good...I wish we'd walk the talk though...or change the talk then.

You're absolutely right, Flasch -- I agree they probably believe they are justified.

... and I could not care less. They are the enemy. Period. I'm sure the Germans thought they were justified as well. It made them no less than the enemy. I don't care what justification they have. It shouldn't make any difference.

[WVUFAN]

Um, I was talking about the Germans during WWII. Do you deny that Germans were fighting for their country? Just like how Americans were fighting for ours?

Terrorists are not fighting for any government. Hence the term illegal combatants. Since they are considered illegal they are due a trial to prove their guilt or innocence. That's the American way, isn't it?

For Americans it is. Not for the enemy. As I said before, I do not believe enemy combatants are entitled to ANY rights.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Bad WVU. You just cost yourself a couple of months of remedial indoctrination training.

You should know perfectly well that the Viet Cong and the Koreans were the good guys, heroic freedom fighters against their evil capitalistic opressors.

Bad WVU, bad I say.

You must consider the founding fathers of this country to be terrorists then. You know, since they fought an illegal war against an evil capitalistic oppressor. :rolleyes:

[Flasch186]

You're absolutely right, Flasch -- I agree they probably believe they are justified.

... and I could not care how they justify doing what they do.


seems to be par for the course to not think about why things are occurring, understanding your enemy is one of the pillars to winning a fight. A little more forethought about Iraq wouldve been helpful, a little more forethought about how it would look when we got caught lying about secret renditions, a little more forethought about citing "good" vs. "evil" as the playing field when in reality we were going to abdicate the "good" label. etc. etc. etc. Remember what freedom means and then go to fight vs. fighting then defining freedom.

[Glengoyne]

You're fine with water boarding? Or being forced to stand on your feet for almost two days? Or open-handed slaps? That's all fine to you? So when the police start using these methods you won't object?


Police can't use these techniques because they are coercive. POWs or enemy combatants or terrorists aren't afforded the same protections as citizen suspected of violating the penal code.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

For Americans it is. Not for the enemy. As I said before, I do not believe enemy combatants are entitled to ANY rights.

I get it. Because we are Americans, we are entitled to do whatever we want. If we want to hold someone indefinitely in a prison cell, we can do that. If we want to torture people, we can do that. If we want to start an illegal war, we can do that. If we want to assassinate foreign heads of state, we can do that.

We can do it all because we are Americans. We are superior to all other humans. Laws in other countries mean nothing to us.

I'm surprised the rest of the world doesn't pay us tribute every year just so we don't destroy them. They are not worthy to share the same planet with us.

FOR WE ARE AMERICANS. FORGET THE HEBREWS, WE ARE GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE.

[WVUFAN]

I get it. Because we are Americans, we are entitled to do whatever we want. If we want to hold someone indefinitely in a prison cell, we can do that. If we want to torture people, we can do that. If we want to start an illegal war, we can do that. If we want to assassinate foreign heads of state, we can do that.

We can do it all because we are Americans. We are superior to all other humans. Laws in other countries mean nothing to us.

I'm surprised the rest of the world doesn't pay us tribute every year just so we don't destroy them. They are not worthy to share the same planet with us.

I'm glad you're seeing things my way. :-)

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Police can't use these techniques because they are coercive. POWs or enemy combatants or terrorists aren't afforded the same protections as citizen suspected of violating the penal code.

Yes, but as I've already said, POWs are entitled to some protections. They don't have the same as a US citizen, but they do have some. Not being tortured is one of them.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I'm glad you're seeing things my way.

And some people wonder why the rest of the world hates us so much.

[WVUFAN]

And some people wonder why the rest of the world hates us so much.

You often hate what you wish you could be.

[JPhillips]

A couple points.

1. Torture doesn't work. Its been shown over and over that torture ends up getting the information that will stop the torture, not necessarily the truth.

2. The Israelis don't torture they befriend. They have been much more successful forming relationships with prisoners and would not consider the techniques we are now using.

3. When we're doing the same things as Pol Pot and the Soviets something is fucked up. These is supposedly the heirs of Reagan?

4. The American soldiers asked for permission from Washington to beat the prisoners with sticks until they were bloody and broken, but Washington told them, “Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren.” David Hackett Fischer, author of Washington’s Crossing, writes that George Washington “often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extend even to their enemies.” Fucking George Washington.

5. I thought Republicans were against moral relativism. Just because we're more humane than terrorists doesn't mean we're right.

6. We've already released people held at Guatanamo without any charges and one military leader said as many as 20% of the detainees were innocent of any crimes. Not surprising when some of them were sold to the US for large bounties.

7. “There is the method of simply compelling a prisoner to stand there. This can be arranged so that the accused stands only while being interrogated — because that, too, exhausts and breaks a person down.

“It can be set up in another way — so that the prisoner sits down during interrogation but is forced to stand up between interrogations. (A watch is set over him, and the guards see to it that he doesn’t lean against the wall, and if he goes to sleep and falls over he is given a kick and straightened up.) Sometimes even one day of standing is enough to deprive a person of all his strength and to force him to testify to anything at all.” -Solzhenitsyn

“is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire to sleep, to sleep just a little, not to get up, to lie, to rest, to forget . . . Anyone who has experienced the desire knows that not even hunger or thirst are comparable with it”. -Menachem Begin

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/Waterboard3-small.jpg

[Jonathan Ezarik]

You often hate what you wish you could be.

I had no idea that the rest of the world really wanted to be overweight, arrogant, cultureless, rude, ignorant, violent, lazy, and _______ (fill in the blank).

[Crapshoot]

I'm glad you're seeing things my way.

Okay, you must be an alias - no one can be this fucking stupid. In your world, why don't we just shoot all the brown people first? Hell, that way - there won't be any terrorists!

Seriously - I'm not American, but like most right-thinking people, I support the idea of fighting terrorism from the side of the right, from the morally justified perspective. When you resort to the level of your enemies, you lose the moral high ground -one of the things that differentiates you in the first place.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

4. Fucking George Washington.

I knew it! Washington hates America! He's nothing but a bleeding heart liberal. It's too bad he's already dead or else we would send him to Iraq.

[WVUFAN]

I had no idea that the rest of the world really wanted to be overweight, arrogant, cultureless, rude, ignorant, violent, lazy, and _______ (fill in the blank).

:rolleyes: Sorry to be cliche, but this honestly sounds like the typical liberal answer -- bitching about America, while enjoying it's freedom.

For the record, if it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic in my earlier statement. I do believe we are the greatest country in the world, but then again, I believe myself to be fairly patriotic.

[Toddzilla]

Okay, you must be an alias - no one can be this fucking stupid. In your world, why don't we just shoot all the brown people first? Hell, that way - there won't be any terrorists!Now you're just sweet talking him.

[molson]

Wait, here's a crazy idea - if those held prisoner at Gitmo are terrorists, we could, you know, put them on trial and present evidence how they are dangerous and need to remain imprisoned.

Again, where are you going to get this evidence, and where is the army of lawyers that are going to try these cases - do you want to volunteer?

In terms of American citizens, when we don't have enough manpower to try all the cases (and I've worked as a prosecutor in offices where we can try approximately 2 trials per week, when we charge about 500 cases in a week), we simply have to dismiss many of the charges. Some jurisdictions dismiss as many as 80% of the criminal charges they file, simply because of lack of resources. That simply isn't an option with the war on terror. We can't release them, and we don't have the resources to try them all.

(We're talking about two different things in this thread - torture and due process. I don't condone torture, but believe it may be helpful in extremely limited circumstances).

[Jonathan Ezarik]

:rolleyes: Sorry to be cliche, but this honestly sounds like the typical liberal answer -- bitching about America, while enjoying it's freedom.

Because I don't view this country with rose-tinted glasses means I'm bitching? Can you say that what I said does not represent the typical American?

[Toddzilla]

:rolleyes: Sorry to be cliche, but this honestly sounds like the typical liberal answer -- bitching about America, while enjoying it's freedom.Typical batshit-crazy NeoCon response - twist the words of those who disagree, and label them unpatriotic.

You idiot, he's not bitching about America, he's bitching about the actions of this presidential administration. In case you haven't figured it out yet, they are not one in the same.

[WVUFAN]

Okay, you must be an alias - no one can be this fucking stupid. In your world, why don't we just shoot all the brown people first? Hell, that way - there won't be any terrorists!

Sigh.


Seriously - I'm not American, but like most right-thinking people, I support the idea of fighting terrorism from the side of the right, from the morally justified perspective. When you resort to the level of your enemies, you lose the moral high ground -one of the things that differentiates you in the first place.

Tell that to Daniel Pearl or to the others who have died by the hands of the terrorists -- "we're not doing what we can to find and destroy the enemy, but at least we have the moral high ground".

[WVUFAN]

Because I don't view this country with rose-tinted glasses means I'm bitching? Can you say that what I said does not represent the typical American?

No, it doesn't. It represents a stereotype, which is mostly wrong just like most stereotypes are wrong.

[WVUFAN]

Typical batshit-crazy NeoCon response - twist the words of those who disagree, and label them unpatriotic.

You idiot, he's not bitching about America, he's bitching about the actions of this presidential administration. In case you haven't figured it out yet, they are not one in the same.

He's NOT bitching about America?

Really? He just called EVERY AMERICAN "overweight, arrogant, cultureless, rude, ignorant, violent and lazy". He didn't say the admininstration was, he said Americans were.

And for the record, I never mentioned the word "patriotic" at all in my response about him. I have no idea if he's patriotic or not. By his words, though, he doesn't hold the typical American in high regard.

[Flasch186]

No, it doesn't. It represents a stereotype, which is mostly wrong just like most stereotypes are wrong.

would it be a stereotype to say all suspects are guilty? truly wondering there.

[cartman]

For Americans it is. Not for the enemy. As I said before, I do not believe enemy combatants are entitled to ANY rights.

If people agree that enemy combatants aren't entitled to any rights, then what is the process to find that someone is or is not an enemy combatant. Just as every person arrested by the police is not a criminal, you can't assume that someone picked up on a military patrol is an enemy combatant. How do you properly screen those picked up, and then prove that they are enemy combatants? That is the jump I don't see in your arguments.

[Buccaneer]

I had no idea that the rest of the world really wanted to be overweight, arrogant, cultureless, rude, ignorant, violent, lazy, and _______ (fill in the blank).

and incredibly eager to come to America?

[molson]

How do you properly screen those picked up, and then prove that they are enemy combatants? That is the jump I don't see in your arguments.

You can't - that's why you have to err on the side of over-inclusion. The only way to guarantee that every one we pick up is properly designated is to detain no one. We have no choice. But, that's also why I don't believe American citizens should EVER be considered enemy combatants.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Can you say that what I said does not represent the typical American?

I don't know what he'll say, but I'll say that I can't swear that you aren't representative of "the typical American".

That would certainly account for why I'm increasingly convinced that we're doomed as a functioning nation and why I'm virtually certain that our downfall will most definitely come from within rather than without.

[cartman]

That would certainly account for why I'm increasingly convinced that we're doomed as a functioning nation and why I'm virtually certain that our downfall will most definitely come from within rather than without.

My money (pun intended) is on a financial meltdown due to our runaway spending. The Chinese government currently holds $1 trillion in US debt instruments. So the cards will be set up from the inside, and put in motion by China.

[Klinglerware]

Sigh.



Tell that to Daniel Pearl or to the others who have died by the hands of the terrorists -- "we're not doing what we can to find and destroy the enemy, but at least we have the moral high ground".

Daniel Pearl was a Stanford grad and a multiculturalist. Not sure he'd agree with you here...

http://www.danielpearl.org/

[JPhillips]

I see a fat pitch coming!!!

we're not doing what we can to find and destroy the enemy, but at least we have the moral high ground

As the plan for Iraq was updated, the plan in Afghanistan unraveled. A well-sourced dispatch in the Christian Science Monitor reported that one of the warlords paid an underling $5,000 to guard the escape routes from Tora Bora. Al Qaeda reportedly topped that and the underling guided the terrorists to safety.

By this account, Bin Laden simply walked out of the supposed encirclement sometime between Nov. 28 and Nov. 30, or between one and three days after the Rumsfeld phone call.

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

on the order of Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, the US have ended a five day old military blockade of the Sadr City section of Baghdad. But that cordon was in place to help find the recently abducted US soldier.

The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

The Bush administration closed a government Web site set up to publicly display pre-war Iraqi documents on weapons of mass destruction after experts said its content included details for building a nuclear bomb, officials said on Friday.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

Shall I go on?

[Buccaneer]

My money (pun intended) is on a financial meltdown due to our runaway spending. The Chinese government currently holds $1 trillion in US debt instruments. So the cards will be set up from the inside, and put in motion by China.

They said the same thing about Japan Inc. in the 1980s.

Besides, you are talking about money and spending. People get tired of libertarians talking about the same thing but it's what most can understand and relate to. I have tried to make the argument that it is not about the money (or cuts), it's just a mean to the end which is power and corruption.

[Glengoyne]

Yes, but as I've already said, POWs are entitled to some protections. They don't have the same as a US citizen, but they do have some. Not being tortured is one of them.


Check and Check. No difference in opinion here.

[cartman]

They said the same thing about Japan Inc. in the 1980s.

Besides, you are talking about money and spending. People get tired of libertarians talking about the same thing but it's what most can understand and relate to. I have tried to make the argument that it is not about the money (or cuts), it's just a mean to the end which is power and corruption.

The big difference between Japan and the US is that the Yen isn't the baseline currency in the world. The dollar is. A large part of the US power projection is tied to the dollar. With the Euro becoming more and more a player in the index market, that is definitely a threat to the dollar. If China dumps their dollars for Euros, the US is screwed.

[Glengoyne]

1. Torture doesn't work. Its been shown over and over that torture ends up getting the information that will stop the torture, not necessarily the truth.

This I'll agree with. I'm not advocating torture. I'm just saying that a lot of what folks are calling torture, falls short of the definition in my mind.

[WVUFAN]

A question to everyone:

What if, tomorrow, we caught Bin Laden? Would it still not be acceptable to use "torture" techniques to retrieve information from him?

Can we use torture as a means to retrieve information that would be directly used to prevent another attack in the US? If it means we prevent another 9/11 from happening, can we use it then?

[Crapshoot]

My money (pun intended) is on a financial meltdown due to our runaway spending. The Chinese government currently holds $1 trillion in US debt instruments. So the cards will be set up from the inside, and put in motion by China.


Nah - greatly overstated. China holds about $600-700 billion in US treasury bills which sounds like a huge number, but is less than one year's budget. Moreover, China couldn't dispose of those assets because that would send the yuan soaring, meaning they would actually end up taking a loss on the whole damn situation in dollar terms. :D Deficits by themselves are not a bad thing neccessarily, and while the US can't continue to live on credit forever, they can in the near-term.

[cartman]

You can't - that's why you have to err on the side of over-inclusion. The only way to guarantee that every one we pick up is properly designated is to detain no one. We have no choice. But, that's also why I don't believe American citizens should EVER be considered enemy combatants.

If there is anything that is antithesis to the 'American Way', it is to say that something is too difficult, so let's not even try. There has to be an attempt to screen the persons picked up.

[cartman]

A question to everyone:

What if, tomorrow, we caught Bin Laden? Would it still not be acceptable to use "torture" techniques to retrieve information from him?

Can we use torture as a means to retrieve information that would be directly used to prevent another attack in the US? If it means we prevent another 9/11 from happening, can we use it then?

How can you be certain the information retrieved from torture is accurate? From all signs, the last two big US terror alerts regarding the Holland Tunnel and the Baltimore ports were gained from false testimony gained from torture.

But hell, it sure would feel good to torture the S.O.B..

[JPhillips]

WVUFAN: No. Torture is morally repellent and unlikely to get useful information. But lets get to the false argument you're making. You want to present a ticking bomb argument and then use that to justify everything else. Its complete bullshit. How would we ever know that a little torture would stop another 9/11? There is no situation where we would have that info, so the argument falls apart.

Let's just label this honesty shall we. You believe that any brutality is justified on the whim of the Executive. You consider that brutality to be justice for acts that have or may or won't happen. The efficacy of such tactics is unimportant, as long as we show those the Executive chooses that we can be brutal.

You just want some ass-kicking done whether or not its helpful or even involves a guilty person.

This is where you and supporters of the President stand. Moral relativists of the first order.

[molson]

If there is anything that is antithesis to the 'American Way', it is to say that something is too difficult, so let's not even try. There has to be an attempt to screen the persons picked up.

I'm sure they try, I'm sure there's an attempt. 100% accuracy is a fantasy.

[Honolulu_Blue]

How would we ever know that a little torture would stop another 9/11?

You just want some ass-kicking done whether or not its helpful or even involves a guilty person.

Dude, it always works for Jack Bauer. Always.

Isn't that evidence enough for you people?

[cartman]

I'm sure they try, I'm sure there's an attempt. 100% accuracy is a fantasy.

A 'try' versus 'they can't' is a pretty big difference. I can live with an honest attempt, but to say they can't is not the way to go.

[JPhillips]

Glen: I think reasonable people can disagree about torture, but when I see pictures of the Khmer Rouge and passages from the Gulag Archipelago detailing what we're doing to detainees I'm sickened. America used to tell other countries to stop these acts, but now we're using these methods and desperately trying to cover them up.

[WVUFAN]

WVUFAN: No. Torture is morally repellent and unlikely to get useful information. But lets get to the false argument you're making. You want to present a ticking bomb argument and then use that to justify everything else. Its complete bullshit. How would we ever know that a little torture would stop another 9/11? There is no situation where we would have that info, so the argument falls apart.

No, I'm presenting a scenario much in the same way as others do when they state the POSSIBILITY that those we are interrogating are innocent. That's entirely possible -- or they could also hold the key information to a potential terrorist attack. One is just as valid a scenario as the other.


Let's just label this honesty shall we. You believe that any brutality is justified on the whim of the Executive. You consider that brutality to be justice for acts that have or may or won't happen. The efficacy of such tactics is unimportant, as long as we show those the Executive chooses that we can be brutal.

I don't believe in brutality just the sake of it. I do believe that effective means up to and including terse interrogative techniques are needed to retrieve the information we need.

I don't believe we should stop these methods just because we MIGHT have innocents. That's like saying we should stop the death penalty because we MIGHT have an innocent being executed. The possibility of being wrong should not curtail the process itself. Nothing would be done with that kind of logic.


You just want some ass-kicking done whether or not its helpful or even involves a guilty person.

Do I want people to pay for what they did to us? ABSOLUTELY. Do I want the insurgents who are responsible for thousands of American troops to pay? ABSOLUTELY. If you want to label it "ass kicking", so be it.


This is where you and supporters of the President stand. Moral reltivists of the first order.

And people like you stand for doing nothing to combat the problem. You'd rather say:
Let's "understand" our enemy, or sit down and have discussion with them. Let's "negotiate" with them to prevent further problems.
Let's rationize 9/11 and place blame on us rather than those who did the crime.
Let's do anything we can to harm the President, even if it causes harm to the nation at large.

[cartman]

Again, WVUFAN, how can you tell who is an insurgent or not? How would bad info from a non-insurgent who just wants the torture to stop be a help to us? Unless you can tell who is really an insurgent and who isn't, how can you say you are maybe getting valuable info? Otherwise, you are just committing torture for the sake of committing torture.

[JPhillips]

Bullshit.

Do you not understand that torture doesn't work?

Do you not understand that the Israelis, who have a bit of experience in this arena, don't torture and instead try to build relationships with prisoners?

Do you not understand that it isn't a possibility that some of these people are innocent, its a fact? What about the Canadian that we sent to Syria to be tortured and then we admitted it was all a mistake.

Do you not understand that for 240 years we survived as a nation while condemning the very acts we are now engaging in and covering up?

Do you not understand that siding with Pol Pot and Stalin is morally disgusting?

Do you not understand that there are options between brutality and "doing nothing"? (again, ask the Israelis)

You have no evidence that any of this has worked, no evidence that it will work, no evidence that even if it works it will help the WOT, no evidence of anything. All you have is a rage that is only quenched by fantasies of beating the shit out of enemies, be they foreign or domestic.

[Flasch186]

im shocked WVUfan is for capital punishment too.... :)

just like Brokeback Mountain would flop financially and be much cause for a drain on the house that put it out....oh those were good times in that thread remember?

I simply dont think that WVUfan knows what Freedom, democracy, and morality is, its been mutated and only V can save him :)

[WVUFAN]

im shocked WVUfan is for capital punishment too.... :)

Yes, I am.


just like Brokeback Mountain would flop financially and be much cause for a drain on the house that put it out....oh those were good times in that thread remember?

And I was wrong. And I POSTED to that fact, if you remember.

[molson]

Bullshit.

Do you not understand that for 240 years we survived as a nation while condemning the very acts we are now engaging in and covering up?


We tortured the shit out of our enemies in every previous war of this country's history. Other than that I agree with you. Lets not pretend the Bush administration invented torture.

[WVUFAN]

Bullshit.

Do you not understand that torture doesn't work?

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/

Try again.


Do you not understand that the Israelis, who have a bit of experience in this arena, don't torture and instead try to build relationships with prisoners?

Referring to the same techniques the US is using, referred as "torture lite":

"In modern times, these tactics have been used by British intelligence to unravel the command structure of the IRA and by the Israelis to stop Palestinian suicide bombers."

CITE: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10020629/site/newsweek/

Try again.


Do you not understand that it isn't a possibility that some of these people are innocent, its a fact? What about the Canadian that we sent to Syria to be tortured and then we admitted it was all a mistake.

I'm glad he got out. Doesn't mean the entire process needs to be tossed.


Do you not understand that for 240 years we survived as a nation while condemning the very acts we are now engaging in and covering up?

We used techniques FAR worse in every war we've been in. You're deluded if you think otherwise.


Do you not understand that siding with Pol Pot and Stalin is morally disgusting?

We're not using the techniques they did. Apples and Oranges.

[JPhillips]

But we didn't enshrine it in law and we didn't accept it. That's a big difference. Its always been going on in the shadows, but now its out in the open. When that happens it becomes acceptable. When it becomes acceptable it starts being used on more and more people. And when that happens we've lost our soul as a noation.

[WVUFAN]

But we didn't enshrine it in law and we didn't accept it. That's a big difference. Its always been going on in the shadows, but now its out in the open. When that happens it becomes acceptable. When it becomes acceptable it starts being used on more and more people. And when that happens we've lost our soul as a noation.

Waitaminute ... so you're saying torture is ok as long as you don't know about it?

[JPhillips]

WVU: We are using Soviet tactics and we are using waterboarding techniques like Pol Pot. Just because you don't want to believe we aren't imitating them doesn't make it so.

And from your article:

A career CIA official involved with interrogation policy cautioned NEWSWEEK not to put too much credence in such claims. "Whatever briefing they got was probably not truthful," said the official, who did not wish to be identified discussing sensitive matters. "And there's no way of knowing whether what good information they got could not have been obtained by more traditional means."

and

Even McCain recognizes there could be rare instances when a president disobeys the law and orders a suspect tortured—say, if Al Qaeda had hidden a nuclear bomb in New York and a suspect involved in the plot had been captured. "You do what you have to do," McCain told NEWSWEEK. "But you take responsibility for it. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the Civil War, and FDR violated the Neutrality Acts before World War II."


And while you can find one case of it working, if anonymous reports can be trusted, that doesn't mean that in general its a bad way to get info.

You want to torture and I find that morally reprehensible and tactically unsound. That sums up our argument and I thin both of us will agree that we aren't going to make any headway. Now I'm out of this.

[JPhillips]

WVU: I shouldn't but I must.

No it doesn't mean I find torture acceptable. I also don't find accepting it as moral necessity acceptable. That's really where the difference is between now and previous admins. Before it was rare and secret and done with the knowledge that it could lead people to prison.

Now its out in the open and seen as necessary, even preferable. All this coming from the same people that decry the coarsening of the culture.

Look at that picture from the Khmer Rouge museum and tell me you're proud of this admin for siding with them.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

He's NOT bitching about America?

Really? He just called EVERY AMERICAN "overweight, arrogant, cultureless, rude, ignorant, violent and lazy". He didn't say the admininstration was, he said Americans were.

And for the record, I never mentioned the word "patriotic" at all in my response about him. I have no idea if he's patriotic or not. By his words, though, he doesn't hold the typical American in high regard.

I really said "EVERY AMERICAN" was all that? Really? Maybe you should go back and read what I said again. I said the typical American was all that. Maybe you live in a different America than me, but when I look around, this is what I see. And I'm sure if you ask people outside this country, that's going to be a view that most of them have of us too.

And for the record, I don't hold most Americans in high regard. Then again, I don't hold the human race in high regard, either, so take that for what it's worth.

I also love it how whenever someone criticizes this country they are labeled unpatriotic. If I wasn't patriotic would I care what happened to this country? Would I be sickened by what I see going on with our government? I hold us to a higher standard than the terrorists and all those we have ever considered "evil", and because of that I'm labeled unpatriotic. If being unpatriotic means calling out your government when you see them trampling on the rights and liberties that this country was founded on, then by all means call me unpatriotic. Call me a Liberal. Call me communist. Call me a terrorist sympathizer. Call me whatever you want if it makes you feel better about yourself. If it allows you to look at the mess this country has created for itself and not vomit, then by all means blame people like me. We aren't the ones rolling over and saying that it's okay the government tortures people. We aren't the ones saying that it's okay the government is holding people indefinitely in secret cells. We aren't the ones saying it's okay for the government to listen in to phone conversations without a warrant. We aren't the ones giving up our freedoms quietly. But we are the ones that get smeared by everyone on the Right who is so afraid of the bogeyman that they are willing to give up everything for a fake blanket of security. And we are the ones that get labeled unpatriotic. Go figure.

[dawgfan]

Again, where are you going to get this evidence, and where is the army of lawyers that are going to try these cases - do you want to volunteer?

In terms of American citizens, when we don't have enough manpower to try all the cases (and I've worked as a prosecutor in offices where we can try approximately 2 trials per week, when we charge about 500 cases in a week), we simply have to dismiss many of the charges. Some jurisdictions dismiss as many as 80% of the criminal charges they file, simply because of lack of resources. That simply isn't an option with the war on terror. We can't release them, and we don't have the resources to try them all.

(We're talking about two different things in this thread - torture and due process. I don't condone torture, but believe it may be helpful in extremely limited circumstances).
So the alternative is to hold people indefinitely without charges? What exactly do we as a country stand for when we discard due process? Do we not start becoming like the totalitarian regimes we condemned in the past?

[WVUFAN]

I really said "EVERY AMERICAN" was all that? Really? Maybe you should go back and read what I said again. I said the typical American was all that. Maybe you live in a different America than me, but when I look around, this is what I see. And I'm sure if you ask people outside this country, that's going to be a view that most of them have of us too.

Wow. So you don't believe every American, just the typical one. Big difference. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Note I'm not saying YOU, Jonathan Ezarik of this. I'm saying YOU as in Liberals. Want to make sure this isn't misconstrued as a personal attack.


I also love it how whenever someone criticizes this country they are labeled unpatriotic.

I never called you unpatriotic. I don't know you enough to do that.


Call me a Liberal.


You're a liberal. That in some ways is worse than being unpatriotic.


Call me communist.


Nope. The Communists (aka Soviet Socialists) wouldn't have an issue with torture. They used much more intense measures than we did -- and they probably got results.


We aren't the ones rolling over and saying that it's okay the government tortures people.

No, you're not. You're the ones that say we have to understand the enemy. You're the ones so blinded by your hatred of the Bush Administration that you're willing to do ANYTHING, including screwing up your own nation, to ruin them.


We aren't the ones saying that it's okay the government is holding people indefinitely in secret cells. We aren't the ones saying it's okay for the government to listen in to phone conversations without a warrant.

No, you're the ones that "out" secrets that undermine the US Government, then cite "Freedom of Press". In earlier years, that's been called "treason".


We aren't the ones giving up our freedoms quietly.


I dunno about you, but I haven't given up any rights.


But we are the ones that get smeared by everyone on the Right who is so afraid of the bogeyman that they are willing to give up everything for a fake blanket of security.

No, you're the ones so afraid of angering other nations you won't do what it takes to protect ours. You're the ones that are more concerned about the lives of our enemy than our own citizens.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

That would certainly account for why I'm increasingly convinced that we're doomed as a functioning nation and why I'm virtually certain that our downfall will most definitely come from within rather than without.

I agree that this country is going to fall due to rot from the inside rather than outside forces. Of course, you'll just blame the Liberals for all that rot. It could never be due to the conservatives who want to legalize torture. No. That has no effect on the moral standing of a country. Or how about all those high profile Christians who preach that homosexuals are destroying this country, but are having gay sex on the side? They won't be held responsible. It's all because of liberals. From the liberal media to Hollywood. (I've always found it funny that for as much as conservatives bitch and moan about Hollywood, they sure seem to enjoy watching Hollywood movies)

This country is falling apart for a lot of reasons. And while you can blame liberals all you want, the most dangerous people to the future of this country are the ones that want to live in the past. The ones that don't understand or won't accept that we live in a global society now and since we are the only superpower left, we have responsibilities to the rest of the world. One of those responsibilities is to be a guide for what the rest of the world should be. You know, that whole shining city thing. When we start to ignore those responsibilities to the rest of the world, we do so at our own peril. The rest of the world takes its cue from us. We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. And over the last several decades, we have failed to do this.

We have let our educational system become a joke. We have a population that is perfectly content with ignoring what is going on in the world and instead focus on what's happening on Grey's Anatomy/American Idol/Some other junk. The majority of the people have no understanding of our history. They can't think for themselves. They don't read. They don't attend the theater/opera/art galleries/symphony. They don't know geography. They don't pay attention to national politics. Hell, they can't even speak the language (and I'm referring to people who were born and raised in this country).

And now we have a significant portion of our population that sees nothing wrong with torture.

All these point to a downfall. Who's to blame? Liberals or conservatives? I'm sure conservatives will blame everything on liberals (while ignoring the fact that for the past 18 of the last 26 years a conservative has been in the White House). While liberals aren't entirely guiltless, neither are they entirely guilty. Both sides of the aisle should take the blame. But we all know conservatives can't seem to admit that they are wrong for anything. It's so much easier to blame someone else.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Wow. So you don't believe every American, just the typical one. Big difference. :rolleyes:

You can't tell the difference? There's a difference between saying everyone in Pittsburgh loves the Steelers and saying the typical Pittsburgher loves the Steelers. One is true, one isn't.

You're a liberal. That in some ways is worse than being unpatriotic.

Are you serious? Do you think all liberals should be taken out back and shot? What's worse than unpatriotic? Honestly, I don't think you understand what patriotism means. Just because you have an American flag flying in your front yard doesn't make you a patriot.

Nope. The Communists (aka Soviet Socialists) wouldn't have an issue with torture. They used much more intense measures than we did -- and they probably got results.

Are you suggesting that we should start using Stalin's techniques to get information?

No, you're not. You're the ones that say we have to understand the enemy. You're the ones so blinded by your hatred of the Bush Administration that you're willing to do ANYTHING, including screwing up your own nation, to ruin them.

Kind of like how conservatives hated Clinton so much they did everything they could to get him from office. Please. The hatred the Left has for the current administration is nothing compared to the hatred the Right holds for the Clintons (notice it doesn't just apply to Bill. Whereas I don't think most liberals care about the rest of the Bush family)

No, you're the ones that "out" secrets that undermine the US Government, then cite "Freedom of Press". In earlier years, that's been called "treason".

You must have a different definition of treason. I expect the media to pry into the workings of the government. That's its job. Who else is going to keep the government in line?

I dunno about you, but I haven't given up any rights.

Including the right to not have your phones tapped without a warrant? Or the right to challenge your imprisonment if you're declared a terrorist?

No, you're the ones so afraid of angering other nations you won't do what it takes to protect ours. You're the ones that are more concerned about the lives of our enemy than our own citizens.

No, we understand that the go it alone approach doesn't work. We understand that murdering thousands of innocent people does nothing to make us safer.

[JeffNights]

Sleep Deprivation pwns all.

[flere-imsaho]

Again, these are not American citizens, and are not due the same rights as us. They are PRISONERS OF WAR.

So, when draft-dodger Bush takes us to war with Iran, and American soldiers are captured and tortured by the Iranians, you'll be OK with that, because, after all, they're prisoners of war.

You're right ... it is pointless. Good thing we have an administration that recognizes the need for tactics like this to get information. If Gore or Kerry were in office, we'd be giving terrorists Perrier and talking about their feelings.

Indulge in speculation all you want, but with Bush in office, we've published to the internet the instructions for making an atomic bomb, sold F-14s to a rogue nuclear state who won't help us find bin Laden, and abandoned the search for an abducted U.S. soldier in Baghdad because an Islamic extremist demanded that we do so.

:rolleyes: Sorry to be cliche, but this honestly sounds like the typical liberal answer -- bitching about America, while enjoying it's freedom.

Sorry to be cliche, but this sounds like the typical conservative gambit -- enjoying American freedoms, while not understanding one iota of the principles which made this country great.

and incredibly eager to come to America?

This is increasingly a myth, as anyone who has spent any time travelling the world can tell you.

A question to everyone:

What if, tomorrow, we caught Bin Laden? Would it still not be acceptable to use "torture" techniques to retrieve information from him?

Wait a second, I thought bin Laden was irrelevant, which is why Bush focused his attention on Iraq instead of Afghanistan? Surely if he's so irrelevant, torturing him for information would be rather pointless?

If he is relevant (now), then how about we get serious about capturing him first. Then we can get around to the question of torturing him, OK? I tell ya, you conservatives - always putting the cart before the horse.

Can we use torture as a means to retrieve information that would be directly used to prevent another attack in the US? If it means we prevent another 9/11 from happening, can we use it then?

Well, we had the information to prevent 9/11 (not gathered through torture, thank you very much), and didn't use it. What makes you think that information gathered through torture (even assuming it was reliable) would be used to stop another 9/11 from happening? Are you suggesting we should listen more to the anguished screams of a former Al-Qaeda operative than the reasoned analysis of our intelligence apparatus (18 separate intelligence agencies and counting!)?



One final question for you. Let's say, hypothetically, you, WVUFAN, are captured by the Liberal Mafia and taken to their secret headquarters in the SOMA district of San Francisco. In their interrogation room (made to look like an ever-hip loft space), you're strapped to a board, leaned backward, and made to feel like you're drowning. All the while, the Liberal Mafia ask you: "Tell us, who is your favorite pop artist?" Will you bravely and resolutely, despite the pain and agony, continue to shout out "Toby Keith! By God, Toby Keith!" Or, is it just a little bit possible that you might see an easier way out and, against the entirety of your nature, squeak "Barbara Streisand!"?

[flere-imsaho]

You're a liberal. That in some ways is worse than being unpatriotic.

So, all the liberals serving their country in Iraq and Afghanistan (and there are a good number) are, according to you, "worse than unpatriotic"? Nice.

The Communists (aka Soviet Socialists) wouldn't have an issue with torture. They used much more intense measures than we did -- and they probably got results.

Where were you in 1989?

You're the ones that say we have to understand the enemy.

I'm pretty sure that was Sun Tzu, actually. Or maybe Machiavelli. Mental midgets, of course, next to you.

You're the ones so blinded by your hatred of the Bush Administration that you're willing to do ANYTHING, including screwing up your own nation, to ruin them.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that the Bush Administration is doing a perfectly good job of screwing up my own nation. I don't think they need my help, to be honest. They're professionals, after all.

No, you're the ones that "out" secrets that undermine the US Government, then cite "Freedom of Press". In earlier years, that's been called "treason".

So what's it called when the Bush Administration publishes information on how to build an atomic bomb?

I dunno about you, but I haven't given up any rights.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you don't really exercise any of your rights.

No, you're the ones so afraid of angering other nations you won't do what it takes to protect ours.

See, this is what we call "diplomacy". You may want to look into it. Many of the great statesmen of civilization felt it was a practice far superior, in the long run, to war.

[WVUFAN]

One final question for you. Let's say, hypothetically, you, WVUFAN, are captured by the Liberal Mafia and taken to their secret headquarters in the SOMA district of San Francisco. In their interrogation room (made to look like an ever-hip loft space), you're strapped to a board, leaned backward, and made to feel like you're drowning. All the while, the Liberal Mafia ask you: "Tell us, who is your favorite pop artist?" Will you bravely and resolutely, despite the pain and agony, continue to shout out "Toby Keith! By God, Toby Keith!" Or, is it just a little bit possible that you might see an easier way out and, against the entirety of your nature, squeak "Barbara Streisand!"?

Ahh, you crafty liberals. That's a trick question. Toby Keith isn't a pop artist.
:)

[ISiddiqui]

I also believe this country will fall because of rot from the inside. However, the rot I see is people willing to throw away the US's most sacred rights and values at a moment's notice. We used to guard these rights and values strongly. We used to say how we had the moral high ground (we still do but it rings very hollow) and how America was a "shining city on a hill". Now? We just toss out the rights and values the US has fought hard for because of fear. Maybe we don't deserve them then. Our fall will be the result of folks not blinking as America does things with regularity that we used to decry.

[WVUFAN]

Where were you in 1989?

Senior in high school.


I'm pretty sure that was Sun Tzu, actually. Or maybe Machiavelli. Mental midgets, of course, next to you.

And here comes the personal insults, and here's where I get off of this topic. It's amazing that many liberals can't seem to have a rational discussion without some sort of personal attack. Funny, that.

[Klinglerware]

Ahh, you crafty liberals. That's a trick question. Toby Keith isn't a pop artist.
:)

Haha, the face of "New Country"? If "How do you like me now" wasn't an attempt to cross-over, I don't know what was!

Toby Keith has plenty of pop potential.

[JPhillips]

In looking back over this I think I can summarize the change from years past to today's torture supporters.
Its gone from:

If I know he's guilty I can torture

to

If I know he's innocent I can't torture

Its this attitude that's filtered down through the military and led to Abu Ghraib like abuses. The leadership says its okay to torture, but the rank and file get punished for carrying it out.

[Buccaneer]

I also believe this country will fall because of rot from the inside. However, the rot I see is people willing to throw away the US's most sacred rights and values at a moment's notice. We used to guard these rights and values strongly. We used to say how we had the moral high ground (we still do but it rings very hollow) and how America was a "shining city on a hill". Now? We just toss out the rights and values the US has fought hard for because of fear. Maybe we don't deserve them then. Our fall will be the result of folks not blinking as America does things with regularity that we used to decry.

Come on, Imran. You are sounding like chicken little with no knowledge of history. By your admonishment, our country would have failed because it had allowed bondage slavery for centuries. It would have failed because of the Sedition Acts right after the country was constitutionalized. It would have have in the periods we suspended habeas corpus. It would have failed when we imprisoned thousands of Japanese-Americans. It would have failed when we enforced Jim Crow laws in large parts of the country, denying many of the basic rights given to others. Or you can say the same thing about other racial and bigotry persecutions of various immigrant and religious groups, not to mention forcing natives to reservations. We have continuously tossed out rights and values throughout our history, but somehow we survived them and have grown stronger.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

And here comes the personal insults, and here's where I get off of this topic. It's amazing that many liberals can't seem to have a rational discussion without some sort of personal attack. Funny, that.

This coming from the man who says that because I'm a liberal I'm worse than unpatriotic. And I don't care if you were using the general "you" in that post. You said that all liberals were worse than unpatriotic. That, to me, is a personal attack.

How about I say: "All conservatives are boot-licking idiots who should be sent to Iraq to clean up the mess this administration (whom they so dearly love) has created."

Now, no one can take this personally because I haven't called anyone by name. Right? No one can actually be upset by this, right?

What's amazing to me is how conservatives how no qualms about slinging around the term liberal like it was an insult and then cry when someone calls them a name.

[Dutch]

Come on, Imran. You are sounding like chicken little with no knowledge of history. By your admonishment, our country would have failed because it had allowed bondage slavery for centuries. It would have failed because of the Sedition Acts right after the country was constitutionalized. It would have have in the periods we suspended habeas corpus. It would have failed when we imprisoned thousands of Japanese-Americans. It would have failed when we enforced Jim Crow laws in large parts of the country, denying many of the basic rights given to others. Or you can say the same thing about other racial and bigotry persecutions of various immigrant and religious groups, not to mention forcing natives to reservations. We have continuously tossed out rights and values throughout our history, but somehow we survived them and have grown stronger.

I love it when Buc hits homeruns. :)

[flere-imsaho]

And here comes the personal insults, and here's where I get off of this topic. It's amazing that many liberals can't seem to have a rational discussion without some sort of personal attack. Funny, that.

Calling liberals "worse than unpatriotic" isn't an insult and personal attack?

[flere-imsaho]

I love it when Buc hits homeruns. :)

I do too, but he hasn't, here.

I don't think it's a strong argument to say "look at all of these horrible things we did, and still survived. We can do horrible things now and we'll still survive." To do so ignores two things:

1. We, as a country, probably shouldn't have allowed such things to happen. Can we not learn from mistakes?

2. The far-reaching, long-term ramifications of these actions, which have been largely negative.



Speaking of history, let's not forget that perhaps the most significant intelligence operation of the 20th century was the ULTRA project to break the German Enigma Code, the success of which arguably ended WWII two years earlier than it otherwise would have. This project's success was due to the intelligence, ingenuity and perseverance of its participants and showcases some of the best attributes of modern civilization. It's a shame that the Bush Administration has seen fit to return us to 14th century intelligence-gathering techniques.

[Buccaneer]

Things will change eventually, some for the better, some for the worse. Older evils will be replaced by newer evils, as has throughout history. It is human nature to not have a good perspective when one is in the middle of shit - thinking that this has never happened before and it will alway be like this from now on. I remember growing up in the 1970s and recalling that by now, we would be living in a scorched earth (due to the Cold War and elimination of all resources). I am reminded of this as I am reading some Southern history (particularly Cobb's book) and hearing the stories of black families and communities from both antebellum and post-reconstruction decades.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

And as a student of history, Buc, you should also know that every great nation falls. The United States is no different.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't disagree with you, Buccaneer (and with a grad degree in history, I can certainly keep up with you on examples), but I don't see how that's an argument for not standing up to object to these kinds of actions.

In fact, I think history shows us that it's important to stand up to these kinds of abuses, lest these abuses become standards.

[Buccaneer]

1. We, as a country, probably shouldn't have allowed such things to happen. Can we not learn from mistakes?

2. The far-reaching, long-term ramifications of these actions, which have been largely negative.



Speaking of history, let's not forget that perhaps the most significant intelligence operation of the 20th century was the ULTRA project to break the German Enigma Code, the success of which arguably ended WWII two years earlier than it otherwise would have. This project's success was due to the intelligence, ingenuity and perseverance of its participants and showcases some of the best attributes of modern civilization. It's a shame that the Bush Administration has seen fit to return us to 14th century intelligence-gathering techniques.

1. It has always been a moving target. We (and everyone else) just end up doing things differently, sometimess for the better, sometimes for the worse. That does not excuse making mistakes but the study of history (and learning from such) is an exercise in the hindsight.

2. You don't know that and neither do I. There have been countless events throughout history that had long-term effects but most of them were rendered neutral or changed into something else.

Enigma: Modern-day intelligence takes many, many forms - all building on what have been built before. You think we only do one type and that's very short-sighted. Just like if you think the enigma project was not rifed political and cultural strifes, not to mention pure luck due to German incompetance and arrogance (read: Battle of Wits).

[Buccaneer]

I don't disagree with you, Buccaneer (and with a grad degree in history, I can certainly keep up with you on examples), but I don't see how that's an argument for not standing up to object to these kinds of actions.

In fact, I think history shows us that it's important to stand up to these kinds of abuses, lest these abuses become standards.

I agree with you. I was just commenting on how actions that do not affect 99% of us can somehow topple our country. I could think of a libertarian argument but I think I shot my wad yesterday on those.

[Buccaneer]

And as a student of history, Buc, you should also know that every great nation falls. The United States is no different.

Yes but not since the Age of Democracy. Superpowers have shuffled up and down (and maybe that's what you're talking about) but all great nations have changed to something else. The main reason, I guess, is economics and/or democratization. I look at the great nations of Europe, Russia and the Middle East, not to mention the Far East. We don't have Napoleanic France or Rule Britannia or Soviet Union or Imperialistic Japan or Nazi Germany or Mao Chinese but they are all still around exerting tremendous influence in the world and their regions. The US will likely cease to be the sole superpower eventually but it will not go away.

[flere-imsaho]

1. It has always been a moving target. We (and everyone else) just end up doing things differently, sometimess for the better, sometimes for the worse. That does not excuse making mistakes but the study of history (and learning from such) is an exercise in the hindsight.

This seems to be an argument, then, that since any course of action may be correct or incorrect, there's never any reason not to try it out. That may be fine in theory, but I would hope you would understand that if people have certain principles that define certain courses of action as wrong, they have every right to object to those courses of action. And what was this country founded upon, if not the belief that certain principles were worth fighting for?

2. You don't know that and neither do I. There have been countless events throughout history that had long-term effects but most of them were rendered neutral or changed into something else.

Yes and no. I guess my point was that, as a student of history, it seems to me that the downfall of most civilizations is often predicated by increasing abuses of power by their ruling structures, regardless of the character of internal and/or external threats (if any).

You think we only do one type and that's very short-sighted.

Oh, come on, cut the condescension. I'm very aware of the different types of intelligence used (and not used) today, just as I'm aware of the various efforts that went into the ULTRA project. My point was simple: we didn't win the intelligence battle in WWII by torturing the fuck out of people, we won it through a combination of intellect, ingenuity, perseverance, resourcefulness (especially by those obtaining the intercepts) and yes, a little luck.

Furthermore, cracking the Enigma Code was identified as the most important intelligence activity of the European theater, given that it would both give the Allies a significant strategic and tactical advantage, as well as improve immeasurably their counter-intelligence efforts. Resources were funnelled to ULTRA commensurately.

Compare this to our present situation. Our current intelligence apparatus (18 agencies and counting!) appears to rely heavily on electronic eavesdropping, satellite imagery, torture, and some level of human intelligence. Intelligence experts in both the U.S. and Britain have repeatedly said that we need to improve the human intelligence aspect of this, to take into account the current situation, yet have we seen any real movement on this as opposed to some of the other techniques (electronic eavesdropping and torture, specifically).

The lesson we can apply from WWII and ULTRA to today is this: when you identify an intelligence need that is strategically significant, you funnel resources to it in a significant manner. Electronic eavesdropping and torture may have their benefits (though I think either are pretty debatable, given the testimony we've seen from experts), but pretty much everyone agrees that human intelligence is not only very significant to the current effort, but also lacking. So why, then, does the Bush Administration continue to expend so much effort convincing us to engage in the practices (and abuses) of the former, while saying little (if anything) about the latter? Is that not something to question, both from a principled as well as a common-sense standpoint?

[Buccaneer]

I didn't mean to be condesending but simply reacting to this statement, "It's a shame that the Bush Administration has seen fit to return us to 14th century intelligence-gathering techniques." Just as we didn't know about the enigma project until many years later, we won't know the full story and techniques about the current battles against Islamic terrorism until later. But right now, all we have to go on is what is fed by the federal govt through media outlets. Probably a very incomplete picture that's full of perceptions and misconceptions. Do I agree with torture being the primary means of intelligence gathering at Gitmo? No, of course not, but I also realize that it's a red herring.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

The US will likely cease to be the sole superpower eventually but it will not go away.

That was what I meant by fall. I don't believe the United States will cease to exist, but our power on the world stage will definitely diminish. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to me to alienate the rest of the world against us when it's only a matter of time before we have to answer for those actions.

[Easy Mac]

Wouldn't it be easier to just shoot them in the head when we're done torturing interrogating them? We wouldn't have to worry about lawyers then, and no one would be any wiser.