Bush to veto intel bill with interrogation restrictions
posted at 9:10 am on March 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
President Bush will veto the recently passed intelligence authorization bill over restrictions on CIA interrogation techniques. He will explain the veto in his weekly radio address, claiming that it takes vital tools away from counterterrorism agents during a conflict when such tools are most needed. The conflict sets up a showdown with Congress, in the presidential election, and with a media apparently determined to misreport it:
President Bush today will veto legislation meant to ban the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics and will argue that the agency needs to use tougher methods than the U.S. military to wrest information from terrorism suspects, administration officials said. …
Although long expected, Bush’s formal move to veto the bill reignites the Washington debate over the proper limits of the U.S. interrogation policies and whether the CIA has engaged in torture by subjecting prisoners to severe tactics, including waterboarding, a type of simulated drowning.
The issue also has potential ramifications for GOP presidential nominee John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of coercive interrogation tactics who nonetheless backed the Bush administration in opposing the CIA waterboarding ban. The Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), both support the ban, though neither was present for last month’s Senate vote for the bill that Bush is to veto.
The legislation would have limited the CIA to using 19 less-aggressive tactics outlined in a U.S. Army field manual on interrogations. Besides ruling out waterboarding, that restriction would effectively ban temperature extremes, extended forced standing and other harsh methods that the CIA used on al-Qaeda prisoners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
John McCain absolutely did not support waterboarding, and the Post misrepresents the issue entirely. John McCain supports the veto not because he supports waterboarding, but because McCain believes it already to be illegal. He has made this plain ever since this bill came to the floor for its vote. His bill in 2006 already made the practice illegal, at least in his opinion, and the portion of this bill that addresses that is superfluous.
More than that, McCain sees it as dangerously limiting to the CIA, for two reasons. First, the Army field manual applies to a different set of circumstances than the CIA faces, primarily because the Army faces a different enemy in the field and has a much different mission than the CIA. The AFM appropriately limits the actions of its interrogators, but it isn’t the ur-text of what constitutes and doesn’t constitute torture. Just because a method doesn’t make it into the AFM doesn’t mean that it’s torture under international convention.
Secondly — and this can’t be said strongly enough — it is wildly inappropriate to publish the limits of interrogatory technique for the CIA. That should be left to the imagination of our enemie, again for two reasons. One, the publication allows our enemies to prepare themselves for the limit of the techniques published, making successful interrogation much more difficult to achieve. Second, having the limits remain unknown allows fear of what might happen to make less-intensive techniques more effective.
McCain opposed the bill for these reasons, not because he supposedly reversed himself on waterboarding. The problems with this legislation don’t involve techniques as much as it involves strategic stupidity.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
Awww poor terrorists will be subjected to effective means of obtaining info which will save people’s lives.
How the liberals must hate this idea!
tx2654 on March 8, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Not just liberals….
I am vehemently against waterboarding.
I dont know if you have ever been waterboarded, it is torture and thereby not fit for our national morals.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 9:17 AM
In terms of our national morals, the West, when threatened, will do whatever it needs to in order to win. This includes nuking cities, women and children.
The difference between us and the enemy is that once the threat is removed, we don’t continue the barbaric behaviour and the killing of innocents.
Canadian Infidel on March 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Heard a radio commercial last night here in the SF area condemning the FISA “immunity for evil telecom”, not even sure who it was endorsing but it was so wrong and bad I wanted to spit. The mis-information campaigning tactics seem to be getting worse, in an era where even the main players are ignorant of the threats we face.It angers me greatly.
bbz123 on March 8, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Let’s just kiss those mean old terrorists on the cheek,pat them on the back and send them on their way. After all, wouldn’t they do the same?
Who gives a rats _ss what our detractors think of us, the mean old US of A. Libs make me SICK!
Golfer_75093 on March 8, 2008 at 9:42 AM
You have been waterboarded? From your nym I might assume you are/have been in the Navy and perhaps were waterboarded during a training exercise?
docob on March 8, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Wow, maybe you are fine with doing it from the sidelines.
I guess when you have to deal with the consequence of pushing the button or waterboarding someone you feel different.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 9:46 AM
I am not anvocating that at all. There needs to be limits though. You give the government a blank check, dimes to donits were next.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 9:48 AM
This is a ridiculous way to differentiate between us and them. They will simply argue as they have that they live under a constant threat.
freevillage on March 8, 2008 at 9:52 AM
When even Chuck Schumer says waterboarding ought to be reserved for application, then it damned well ought to stay.
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 9:52 AM
I’m vehemently against allowing terrorists to keep information from us that will save American lives. I have seen no evidence it is torture.
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Torture? Give me a break. You sit up afterwards, blow the water out of your nose and you are completely unharmed. That isn’t torture.
darwin-t on March 8, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
THREE TIMES.
It was used THREE TIMES. There obviously ARE limits.
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 9:54 AM
The idea that waterboarding doesn’t work is, of course demonstrably false. The US Government has only waterboarded three people, all high value Al Qaeda terrorist masterminds. One of them, Khalid Shaykh Muhammed, the operational mastermind of, among other heinous atrocities, the 9-11 terror flyer attacks, when weeks of other tactics had failed, after only 2 1/2 minutes of waterboarding gave up more than a dozen ongoing operations, the disruption of which saved thousands of innocent lives, and several high-value Al Qaedan associates, the apprehension of which most likely saved thousands more. The other two, by the way, were Abu Zubaydeh, Al Qaeda’s chief financier, who told them where the money was going, and the operational mastermind of the Bali bombing. In fact, the radical degradation of Al Qaeda as a globally threatening force can most probably be traced to that single interrogation. I posted here an ABC report by Brian Ross, the chief investigative reporter for ABC news, with a person who was present at Khalid Shaykh Muhammed’s waterboarding - and it made these precise points. Without it, we could have had a dozen transatlantic flights from Europe blown up over US metropolises, and have lost the Chicago Sears Tower, the Los Angeles Library Tower, and the Seattle Space Needle, among many other targets the plans for which were disrupted as a result of the info obtained through Muhammed’s waterboarding. The leaders of the US Congress, both Republican and Democrat, were advised of the decision beforehand, and rather than protest, they inquired whether even more coercive techniques could be employed (they weren’t).
The canard that waterboarded captives will say anything, whether true or not, and even issue disinformation, is also demonstrably untrue. Their info is rapidly checked, as everyone concerned knows it will be, and if it is proven to have been misleading, both the terrorists and their waterboarders know that they will be seeing each other again.
Also failing is the contention that such actions will allow our adversaries license to perpetrate the same tactics against members of our own military. Anyone who can read the news or download videos full well knows that not only do terrorist groups curl their contemptuous lips at such conventions (they view them as signs of weakness), but that they have also perpetrated far worse against our own captured soldiers, both before and since the waterboardings - tactics such as scooping out eyes with spoons, using electric shock on genitals, power-drilling into joints, and beheading with dull knives.
People who would prefer for thousands of innocent civilian citizens to die horrible deaths than for a genocidal terrorist mastermind to endure a few minutes of extreme discomfort which does no enduring physical damage, and is in fact employed to train members of our own military in SERE school in resistance to interrogation techniques, are, in my opinion, ethically and morally bankrupt, on any utilitarian cost-benefit analysis that takes into account the total misery contingent upon either employing or failing to employ the practice.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 9:56 AM
What are those consequences?
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Good question. I want to know this too.
It’s NOT torture. For stupid liberals not getting freshly squeezed orange juice is torture.
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 9:57 AM
“… that restriction would effectively ban temperature extremes, extended forced standing and other harsh methods …”
Our Troops go through worse in bootcamp.
Sort of O/T, but last night I flew into Portland, Or. We had a few G.I.s onboard, I announced them on the mic andthey got a nice round of applause. As everybody deplaned in PDX, the last guy off was one of those G.I.s.
He said “Thanks for announcment, we appreciate that, but I then had to listen to the three hippies in front of me bash the military.”
One of those hippies was still in earshot when I replied “I’m not surprised that would happen in a city with a statue of Lenin. Screw ‘em, who cares what a burned-out hippie thinks?”
He said “Yeah, I guess that’s what we’re here for, to defend their freedom to say something stupid.”
Of course hippie dude did not say a word as he left the plane now that he knows who (one of) the G.I.s were. He was all mouth when he thought none of them heard him, but he nothing to say back to me or the G.I.
Hippie putz.
Tony737 on March 8, 2008 at 9:58 AM
man are the terrorists laughing at us :(
wether we do or dont waterboard shouldnt be a discusion to begin with.
i dont care if we do or dont i just dont want the enemy to know absolutly everything they can expect when they are caught…
trailortrash on March 8, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Regarding the issue though, I’d say our society has to develop a moral consensus first. Enforcing it is a complicated but separate problem.
If an interrogator knows for sure that they are dealing with a terrorist who is part of an on-going plan to murder people then you are morally justified to do whatever. Note, however, that an on-going plan doesn’t include a “murderous ideology” or other vague qualifications.
The problem arises when suspects about whom nothing is known for sure are tortured in order to extract information from them. When you start doing that, you make a moral choice of justifying torturing innocent people, of which a certain percentage (more like close to 100%?) is now guaranteed. That, in my view, is unacceptable.
freevillage on March 8, 2008 at 10:00 AM
OK we agree to digagree
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:05 AM
I totally support water-boarding terrorists. The American people must be considered first and foremost. Lives were saved by using this method of interrogation and it ought to be used whenever necessary. Those who protest this method of interrogation do not put America/Americans first.
Thank God that President Bush will veto this bill.
sinsing on March 8, 2008 at 10:07 AM
What do you base this 100% figure on? And, isn’t the whole issue that the procedure will only be used when innocence isn’t in question?
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Why are you so angry :)
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Would you do this for your wife or children?
JiangxiDad on March 8, 2008 at 10:12 AM
“People who would prefer for thousands of innocent civilian citizens to die horrible deaths than for a genocidal terrorist mastermind to endure a few minutes of extreme discomfort which does no enduring physical damage … are, in my opinion, ethically and morally bankrupt …” - Salmantis
I hereby nominate this for the ‘Comment of the Year’ Award.
Tony737 on March 8, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Here’s what I think. I think it is a slow Saturday morning and you’re a bit bored.
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Heh, a chickenhawk argument from some guy in the Navy. That’s funny.
JasonG on March 8, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I have always put america first, but not above our national conscience. By you reasoning, why dont you cut off their testicles, brand them with hot pokers, etc?
Is there even a line for you as to what is acceptable.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I support any method that saves American lives and puts deadly fear into the hearts of these wastes of flesh.They WILL force us into doing things and making decisions that we loathe,but the consequences of avoiding those decisions is far far worse for us and ours.The fault lies on them, and has been stated earlier, we will not become them once their threat is stopped, We sill continue to be the light of the freedom loving people everywhere.
bbz123 on March 8, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Maybe some of the people here are angry because they had family or friends die during 9-11, and resent someone who would, had he had the Al Qaeda terror mastermind in custody before then and knew that he had specific knowledge of ongoing terror plots, would have elected not to waterboard him, and abandoned their friends or relatives to die.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I support the President on this issue. John McCain’s opposition to aggressive interrogation is another reason I do not support him.
And the above legislation is another indication that the democrap party and certain RINOs are weak and cannot be relied upon to fight a successful fight against our sworn enemies.
Zorro on March 8, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Harsh. Just harsh.
Weight of Glory on March 8, 2008 at 10:15 AM
And what is my proof that crossing my own moral lines would save my wife and child?
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:15 AM
First off, it’s not about innocence. It’s about an on-going plan to kill people. But I think we’re basically in agreement. I have no problem with waterboarding having been used in those three cases. I mean, if someone is about to set off a bomb, you can… kill him, eat him alive, do anything really. So clearly in a “ticking bomb” scenario torture is justified.
However, my point is that not every scenario involving a prisoner in captivity is a ticking bomb scenario. Is the line clear? Maybe not. All it means then is that we should spend double time making it as clear as possible.
freevillage on March 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM
BTW Just for everyones information, the methods used to train military personnel are classified. But there was a former instructor at SERE school willing to say that waterboarding is torture.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Maybe some of the people here are angry because they had family or friends die during 9-11, and resent someone who would, had he had the Al Qaeda terror mastermind in custody before then and knew that he had specific knowledge of ongoing terror plots, would have elected not to waterboard him, and abandoned their friends or relatives to die.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Not in most peoples mind I would guess, they havent even really thought about lines.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I’m not sure I ever read anything more shocking here at HA.
JiangxiDad on March 8, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Let us consider with crystalline clarity precisely what Squid Shark is telling us; he is telling us that had we captured Khalid Shaykh Muhammed before 9-11 and were aware that he possessed actionable information that could be used to disrupt ongoing terror plots, he would have chosen to allow the 9-11 terror flyers to massacre 3000 of our innocent civilian citizens rather than to submit a genocidal terror mastermind to a few minutes of extreme discomfort that would cause no enduring physical damage. That stance, in my opinion, is quantums beyond reprehensible.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I am glad that abdicating our national morals is ok to you, it is not to me.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Yes, Squid Shark, right. We historically know that Khalid Shaykh Muhammed had remained silent during weeks of other interrogation techniques, and we also know that he spilled his guts after 2 1/2 minutes of waterboarding. Sometimes you don’t have weeks, anyway.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Would you cut off someone fingers to save your wife and child?
Of course you would and so would I, does that make it right or moral, particularly if the effectiveness of the treatment is in doubt.
Dont be shocked, I am just being realistic.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:25 AM
There are also retired military brass who are now opposed to our invasion of Iraq. We see them every day on CNN. Do you believe everything Wesley Clark says? At one time, he was considered an expert.
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 10:26 AM
It might already have.
They gave up several plots. They’ve given up useful intel. It DOES work.
Sorry about that.
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 10:26 AM
BTW: I also am a Naval vet; I served as an aviation antisubmarine warfare technician.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Your reasoning is flawed because we would not have known about a plot, we can not know if other methods would have worked on him. I am very troubled that we have to argue about whether torture is justified by america using an “ends justify the means argument”
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:28 AM
This is a stupid canard.
Yours is an irreversible scenario.
Waterboarding causes no real damage. Now try being realistic again, because this wasn’t close.
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 10:28 AM
It’s one thing to argue for torture, and it’s another to claim waterboarding is not torture.
Assuming waterboarding is equivalent to drowning, what part of somebody drowning you not qualify as torture?
It’s really shameful the enemies are making us destroy our reputation abroad.
mycowardice on March 8, 2008 at 10:29 AM
“TW: I also am a Naval vet; I served as an aviation antisubmarine warfare technician.”
Good to see another Squid in the waters…
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Would you rather allow them to slaughter our citizenry at home?
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Hey, but at least our national morals would be intact. Isn’t that worth thousands of innocent American lives? Gotta keep your priorities straight here.
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Torture is having a son in Iraq and knowing the Donks don’t give a crap about his safety. Torture is knowing that Donks are working tirelessly to destabilize our economy so as to bring about some type of Marxist/Stalinist/Clintonista hell upon us. Torture is knowing that the Donks go into orgasmic splendor when they hear Al Gore enunciate the truth. Waterboarding is a non issue. Just a distraction thrown up by the Donks.
JonRoss on March 8, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Those people who we are destroying our reputation with…do much worse…like rape women in Africa…Don’t believe that crap.
tomas on March 8, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Squid, we in fact Do know that other means DID NOT work on him; that’s precisely the point.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 10:32 AM
“Yours is an irreversible scenario.”
So is that the definition of torture?
I think not
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:33 AM
You know what happens when you “assume.”
You “assume” waterboarding is the equivalent of drowning. It makes one feel as though one is drowning. It is NOT the same as drowning.
No one ever drowned during waterboarding.
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Yours is an irreversible scenario.”
So is that the definition of torture?
I think not
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Irreversible damage. That’s part of the definition of torture. You might choose to familiarize yourself with it rather than operate only on opinion.
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 10:35 AM
It isn’t torture. It isn’t drowning. It uses the natural gag reflex to simulate drowning. It is entirely psychological. I would rather be waterboarded than spend hours naked in an extremely cold enviorment.
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 10:36 AM
So your views are the only ones represent the national morality? Give me a break!
There are times when very bad people need to be dealt with in ways “inconsistent” with the lilly white qualms of people who whine about national morality!!!
The use of waterboarding has been rare, well documented, and certainly not abused as an interrogation technique. It should be an option left on the table.
highhopes on March 8, 2008 at 10:37 AM
If we can’t waterboard, can we put these bastards in a truck full of live pigs for a while?
I personally don’t give a damn what the libtards or Europe thinks of our tactics. We’re not going against an enemy who is playing by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. We’re going against an enemy who has no problem killing civilians or military people in barbaric ways. These scum are not uniformed military members and do not carry a military ID with a Geneva Convention category on the back. As such, the Geneva Convention does not apply.
Mooseman on March 8, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Let them laugh. Freedom and a civil society would seem silly to a bunch of female abusing, camel urine drinking beheaders. But free exchange of ideas and lots of yelling has always worked for America and probably always will.
snaggletoothie on March 8, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Waterboarding does not use physical pain; it employs psychological fear.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Our interrogation techniques: Waterboarding
al-Qaeda interrogation techniques: Hanging people up on hooks, beating them, attaching them to live electrical wires, raping them, putting them through plastic shredders, and any other atrocity that can be imagined involving lots of blood and gore.
I think the comparison makes President Bush’s case.
Mommynator on March 8, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Hey Squid
You might like to read “Lone Survivor.” See how our guys are treated. Then come on back here and report.
This superior mindset bullshit is just that. The goddam Geneva Convention exists to prevent the US from doing to badasses what badasses do to our guys.
Get over it.
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 10:40 AM
“You “assume” waterboarding is the equivalent of drowning. It makes one feel as though one is drowning. It is NOT the same as drowning.”
Seems that since Navy Vets have been screwed up for life after being waterboarded and deaths have been reported from this procedure.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:41 AM
“Moral high ground ” doesn’t mean a hoot if you wind up dead.
The purpose of life is to live. allowing others to kill you when you had the chance to stop it BY ANY MEANS is moral bankruptcy.not high ground.
bbz123 on March 8, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I fail to see how comparative moralism makes it any more right. Moral relativism is a halmark of the left.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Are you arguing against a McCain presidency, Squid? He most certainly endured far worse at the hands of the Viet Cong - and for far, far longer.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Female genital mutilation as a culture?
Using mentally disabled women for bombs?
Stoning to death for accusations of adultery?
Stabbing people to death because you don’t like his movie?
These are the asshats who won’t “respect” us if we waterboard?
Are you kidding me?
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 10:43 AM
“The purpose of life is to live. allowing others to kill you when you had the chance to stop it BY ANY MEANS is moral bankruptcy.not high ground.”
I could stop terrorism by genocide of all Muslims, does not make it right…
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Prove it.
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM
References?
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Those who claim to be moral absolutists on the issue are actually, unbeknownst to themselves, indulging in a weirdly inverted moral relativism. They are de facto choosing to allow many innocent people to die horrible painful deaths rather than to subject a single would-be mass murderer to temporary discomfort in order to extract from him the information necessary to save them.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Yeah that goddamn Geneva Convention, Ill take my Code of Conduct and sit over here, thanks.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 10:47 AM
How do you feel about our troops taking the lives of the enemy? By your standards, isn’t that relative moralism?
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 10:47 AM
not even the same argument and not true either, not all terrorists are muslims.
trailortrash on March 8, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Couldn’t proove either of these statements by anything said here today.
JonRoss on March 8, 2008 at 10:53 AM
So you are saying that when you are waterboarded air flows freely into your lungs?
mycowardice on March 8, 2008 at 10:54 AM
.
Yeah, first thing I thought when I read that was “since when?”
Exactly, this is maddening to me. Political one-ups-manship has become the only priority for democrats (and some republicans) for some time now. No matter how it endangers us or the country. If we were facing a real serious enemy right now like Hitler, Stalin or the like, I shudder to think of all the ways our beloved politicians would be selling us down the river during childish petty games of gotcha!
conservnut on March 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
They are going to do it whether it is outlawed or not if need be.
tomas on March 8, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Nope, the “don’t tell the enemy line” just won’t wash. Here’s why: Torture is illegal under international law. The U.S. supposedly doesn’t “do torture”. If that claim is true, then there must be practices X, Y, and Z which will never be used. As it is, the reasonable conclusion of the outside world is that the U.S. condones outlawed interrogation techniques.
corona on March 8, 2008 at 11:01 AM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/mochila.php?articleId=10266387&channelId=76&buyerId=talkingpointsmemo_com400732&buid=866
I know this one is a lefty reference but is sums up the stories of deaths in algeria by waterboarding:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/01/terror/main677278.shtml
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:01 AM
No, I am not. I am saying there is no or very little water flowing into your lungs. The body just thinks there is. It is a simulation which fires up an involuntary gag reflex. There is no physical insult.
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 11:03 AM
When being actively shot at one shoots back, when you have a prisoner, you act differently, two VERY different examples.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I was never more pissed when Gloria Steinam demeaned McCain’s POW experience. But I am now beginning to wonder if the 5 1/2 years of hell he went through has turned him against the use of tools that may insure our survival.
JonRoss on March 8, 2008 at 11:04 AM
So you are questioning my patriotism, you are a real SOB to question someones love of country, I have given my entire adult life to serving this country!
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:05 AM
“not even the same argument and not true either, not all terrorists are muslims.”
You said by any means, and the ones who cause us the most heartache are definately Muslims…
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:06 AM
You’re not a liberal, but you cite Amy Goodman?
Forgive me, but I now think you’re completely full of shit.
And disingenuous.
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 11:06 AM
But we are not talking about just any prisoner. We are talking about individuals who we have reason to believe are an extrodinary threat or may know something. Not just any random prisoner. That is why waterboarding MUST be kept in our arsenal.
JonRoss on March 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM
lol i never said by anymeans :)
but i do support waterboarding, i just wish that had i been caught when i was serving waterboarding would have been the worst thing i had to worry about.
we trained for known jungle warfare type torture you know the kind that mccain himself went thru and that was awful, to have to worry about the torture you would endure at the hands of todays terrorist/enemy is mindboggling and pales in comparison to waterboarding.
trailortrash on March 8, 2008 at 11:09 AM
\
My son who is your age and has given his entire adult life to serving this country. Two combat deployments. Combat meaning being shot at on a daily basis for months. Returning fire. Hopefully hitting targets. Capturing thugs. Yes, Squid, I do have questions about you.
JonRoss on March 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
There are no take backs…remember that. Intense reasoning doesn’t always work…nor does please.
tomas on March 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I am lazy and used an easy summary article rather than the sources. My apologies that she was quoted in one of my articles. It is a lovely saturday and you do not have my full attention.
How am I disingenuous?
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Throwing accusations of “moral relativism” at your opponents simply wastes everyone’s time. You should try to understand their reasons for their positions. I think it’s pretty clear that during war we do have to do. We know that includes killing enemy soldiers and other enemies who are helpful to the opposing team’s war effort. If anyone wants to accuse of moral relativism for believing it’s morally appropriate to kill enemy soldiers during war, then it just shows the moral bankruptcy of the people who throw the “moral relativism” accusation.
In my view of morality, if it’s fine to kill and wound the enemy during a war, it’s certainly fine to waterboard or use any other tactic to cause extreme fear or distress. I do draw a line at torture which I define as causing extreme pain and/or mutilation–which I think may be worse than death at times. If I had to choose between being horribly tortured for a week or death, I’d choose death.
thuja on March 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM
“But we are not talking about just any prisoner. We are talking about individuals who we have reason to believe are an extrodinary threat or may know something. Not just any random prisoner. That is why waterboarding MUST be kept in our arsenal.”
We can disagree on this issue and I see that we still will no matter what we say to each other.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Ok so here is the testimony Allen S. Keller, M.D. (Associate Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine Director, Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture Member, Advisory Council, Physicians for Human Rights) gave to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing on U.S. Interrogation Policy and Executive Order 13440 September 25, 2007
mycowardice on March 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Waterboard them and then put a 45 round through their head so they terrorize no more. They willingly blow themselves up killing innocent civilians in the name of Allah. We need it implement an express lane so they can meet their 57 Virginians as soon as possible.
trs on March 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 »