Apparently Condoleeza and Cheney made the decision to use waterboarding on prisoners.

Do you people still run thugs out of town?Condoleeza and Cheney knew.

Apart from the question of the ethics or efficacy of torture, these people pretended to be shocked, shocked when news of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib came out.

Even if you were a torture enthusiast, a die-hard Jack Bauer fan, wouldn't you be disugusted that Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and so on had allowed soldiers to be jailed for carrying out the kinds of action these politicians had already calmly reviewed and approved?

'...At times, CIA officers would demonstrate some of the tactics, or at least detail how they worked, to make sure the small group of "principals" fully understood what the al-Qaida detainees would undergo. The principals eventually authorized physical abuse such as slaps and pushes, sleep deprivation, or waterboarding...'
Cheney, Others OK'd Harsh Interrogations

and here I thought this was about water sports.

It would seem that certain miltary people are starting to get worried. Now they are blaming the White House for the torture.Army blames the White House

Military officers take an oath to uphold the US Constitution. The US Constitution clearly states that the US is bound by treaties it has entered into. If someone promised, swore, to follow certain rules, and then doesn't, who else is to blame but the person who did not keep his oath? Meyers was chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, which certainly implies that he was in the military long enough to have read the Constitution a few times. It's not a long document, and it isn't even in small print, so however misled he was or feels he was does not negate the fact that he failed to keep his oath. I hope that these guys who tortured get prosecuted; sooner or later, someone will roll over on some big names.

Didn't we prosecute some guys several years ago who claimed that they "were just following orders"? How did that plea work out for them?

The only people who pretend that waterboarding is torture are those who have abdicated their mental processes to those who say so.

You waterboard yourself every time you snort water in the shower. Get a life.

quote:

Originally posted by Veteran of OIF OEF and OSW:


You waterboard yourself every time you snort water in the shower. Get a life.

Yes. They should have given these evil people showers. They'd confess straight away.

Fred, by far our most effective means of getting the information we want is bribery. In Iraq, we tracked terrorists by simply offering $20 or $50 cash to citizens with information, and they usually took it and gave us quality information worth following.

When we find the ranking terrorists, they're usually surrounded by dead bodies, some of them ours. Terrorists are almost never taken alive. We've been forced to kill thousands of them.

When we finally get them to Gitmo, liberals give them lawyers, demand their rights, and they treat our service members as if they're "presumed guilty" and the terrorists as "presumed innocent".

I don't debate childish rants about waterboarding. It causes no harm, it's nothing compared to real torture.

The debate I engage is "why are liberals so supportive of terrorism"?

quote:

I don't debate childish rants about waterboarding. It causes no harm, it's nothing compared to real torture.

You don't have to debate...just agree to being waterboarded yourself, and then come back and tell us if it's torture.

And don't pretend that all who were waterboarded, were terrorists.

Honilov, it's a matter of perspective.

Those of you liberals who tremble at the sight of getting wet can consider waterboarding torture because you know no better.

Those of us who have undergone any kind of conditioning for the military, sports, or any other rigourous activity have a different perspective. We're just not that weak.

The three men who were waterboarded by our DoD or CIA for operations in the War on Terror were all terror leaders, no pretending necessary. Since I'm familiar with the Army manual's interrogation routine, I have a basis to believe the report.

You on the other hand, seem to have no basis to believe either way, you therefore default to the liberal position that America is presumed guilty and call it "good". I can't imagine how far you have to lower your standards to reach this point in life, but I pity you.

Thanks for your pity, it's not often that a conservative offers anything.

Oh, I forgot about Bush's trickery rebate package.

Thank you for making my point.

So our president has to "trick" you into taking money?

(You can't see me, but I'm laughing right now. Typical liberal. If you're that easy to sucker, give me your e-mail address, I have a business proposition for you...)

Hell no, he's not man enough to trick me, but you'd be surprised at the people that believes Bush is thinking of them by sending rebates. Bush don't give a **** about them. For all I'm concerned, he can keep it. As for your proposition, again thanks for the offer, but I decline.

Also keep laughing, it does the body good.

How much arrogance does it take for you to pretend that you know who Bush cares about and who he doesn't?

You offer a shining example of Bush Derrangement Syndrome. The disease compels you to put aside common sense and decency and you can't control the vile things you say.

Your president was elected by the people and has earned that minimum of respect, for the sake of the country you live in. Your president has been well-behaved, good natured and we have seen no scandal touch him, personal or professional (despite the endless parade of lunacy, conspiracy theories and hatred directed toward him). He clearly has a high regard for public service; he doesn't deserve for you to be so mean-spirited toward him.

You are one of the reasons why liberals are among the most hated people in America. Generally, Americans don't like mean people.

"Your president was elected by the people and has earned that minimum of respect..."

And that is exactly what he is getting, so why complain? I do not remember seeing the Right complain about Clinton not getting enough respect.

Vet, try reading Theodore Roosevelt's letter to the Kansas City newspaper (The Star, I think). He put it much better than I could.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918

www.theodoreroosevelt.org

quote:

he doesn't deserve for you to be so mean-spirited toward him.

And neither does Honi deserve that from you. I may not always agree with her, but I do respect her; her almost 6 years of posting here demand that respect. So no more ad hominems or ad feminems.

quote:

How much arrogance does it take for you to pretend that you know who Bush cares about and who he doesn't?

All it takes is a little commonsense with opened eyes to know. However, some are so blind that they'll never see. Some have seen since he was given the presidency, but are too ashamed to admit it. Wonder which catagory do you fall in. Have another laugh.

I fall into the category of supporting my president whether his name is Bush or her name is Clinton. America is stronger with our support. It's only four years, suck it up and try it again next election.

I fall into the category of giving my government the benefit of the doubt after reading about the blood and treasure spent freeing dozens of nations all over the world and then asking for nothing in return, not even territory, as a true imperialist nation would.

I fall into the category of admiring my president for having the sensitivity to see women in Afghanistan reduced to being treated like livestock, given no education or a voting privilege, and being under house arrest in their homes and leaving only with male escort, and for thinking for even a moment that "all human beings yearn to be free" and then helping them achieve that.

After enduring the putrid, vile criticism of liberals for the last 7 years and NEVER saying a single harsh word in reply, I think the world of the man, because I would have torn your throat out. (Or maybe I would have used the Patriot Act for all the things liberals say it's for.)

quote:

because I would have torn your throat out.

Related to Saddam?