Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 511 To 520 Of 657 Comments
retire05 Said:
10:45 am"'Torture' is a vague claim. Do you, Rick, consider waterboarding 'torture'?"
I've posted this link before for you r05:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/
Sure sounds like torture to me.
Again, let's assume it's not torture (although I think that's an untenable position to take) -- what did we get for "pushing the edge"? Not a damn thing. No plots foiled, to ticking bombs defused. The best I've heard is we got info that we already had . . . without resorting to torture:"The DNI documents portray the capture and intermittent interrogations of Zubaida as crucial to unraveling much of what the government knows about the Sept. 11 attacks and the internal operations of al-Qaeda. But some of the portrayal appears to be at odds with other published reports, and intelligence sources indicated yesterday that Zubaida's case is more complicated than the administration let on.
Zubaida "was wounded in the capture operation" in Pakistan in March 2002, and "likely would have died" if the CIA had not provided medical attention, according to the documents. During an initial interrogation, he provided information "that he probably viewed as nominal," but which included identifying Mohammed as the Sept. 11 mastermind who used the nickname "Mukhtar," the documents say. The information "opened up new leads" that eventually resulted in Mohammed's capture, the documents say.
But in his recent book, "The One Percent Doctrine," Ron Suskind reported that a tipster led the CIA directly to Mohammed and subsequently collected a $25 million reward. Intelligence sources said yesterday that Suskind's description is correct but that Zubaida's information was also helpful.
What the DNI documents also do not mention is that the CIA had identified Mohammed's nickname in August 2001, according to the Sept. 11 commission report. The commission found that the agency failed to connect the information with previous intelligence identifying Mukhtar as an al-Qaeda associate plotting terrorist attacks, and identified that failure as one of the crucial missed opportunities before Sept. 11."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090602142_pf.htmlThe other aspect of all this is the constant undertone of "well, you have to remember how people were feeling after9/11" when discussing torture. We all remember . . . fear and anger were thick in the air. The trouble is, thise emotions suggest a desire to hurt "them", to get some level of petty revenge, not to calmly and objectively gether information. That supports "torture" (let's hurt this terrorist ba$tard) as opposed to "necessary intelligence gathering".
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.04.2008 @ 01:43
"But I disagree with hysterical liberals that our reputation and moral leadership is gone, never to be seen again. How we deal with what has been wrought in our name says volumes about us as a people and how determined we are to clean up our own house."
Amen and Amen again.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.04.2008 @ 01:07
@Manning:
"That they are condemned without trial as terrorists is a given—caught in the act, so to speak—so they must take their chances. Deep interrogation is one of those chances."
Because they were caught in the act: Standing on a desert sanddune, firing hot lead at US Soldiers, screaming "Death to Amerika!!" as our guys dive-tackled them from behind, knocjing the still-smoking weapon out of their clutching hands as the caught-in-the-act coward is dragged off to meet their well-deserved fate.
-or-
bounty hunters dumped the bound and blindfolded bodies of random people (or people they had a grudge against) at the feet of US soldiers and told us they were terrorists. They did it for revenge, they did it for cash . . . but regardless of their motives, we blindly assumed they were telling the truth and dragged the innocent off to their not-deserved fate. No caught-in-the-act, no "troops kick the door down as they are building a bomb", no evidence at all except the word of a mercenary.
Would scenario #2 change your opinion? If the people in Gitmo really HAD been "caught red handed", why have we let the vast majority go free (after years in prison and interrogation)? Here's some DOD documentation that was forced to be made public of the tribunals discussing the "evidence" against them:
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/index.html
if you don't want to look through the hundreds of pages (although the complete lack of evidence starts on page one of the 1st set of documents), here's a nice summary in the National Journal:
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj4.htm
some choice quotes:
"Baher Azmy of Seton Hall Law School represents Murat Kurnaz, a Turk who is at Guantanamo. "The government has no case against him," Azmy says. Kurnaz was plucked off a bus in Pakistan and subsequently accused of being friends with a suicide bomber. The government did not tell Kurnaz's tribunal that his friend is alive and therefore could not be the referenced suicide bomber. In March, Kurnaz's file was accidentally, and briefly, declassified: According to the Washington Post, it consisted of memos from domestic and foreign intelligence sources stating that Kurnaz posed no threat. The file, however, contained one anonymous memo contradicting the rest and claiming he was connected to Al Qaeda. In January 2005, a federal judge singled out Kurnaz's case as evidence of the lack of due process in the Guantanamo tribunals. The judge said that his tribunal had ignored exculpatory evidence and relied instead on the single anonymous memo that was not credible."
. . .
"The filtering process for deciding who was sent to Guantanamo wasn't perfect, Jacobson said, nor should it have been. To protect U.S. soldiers still fighting in Afghanistan it was better to err on the side of caution and to send more, rather than fewer, men to Guantanamo. "If it's the other way around, then you're doing it wrong."But nuance didn't exactly survive the air convoys to Cuba. The men in the orange jumpsuits, President Bush said, were terrorists. They were the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth, Rumsfeld said. They were so vicious, if given the chance they would gnaw through the hydraulic lines of a C-17 while they were being flown to Cuba, said Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But the CIA didn't see it that way. By the fall of 2002, it was common knowledge around CIA circles that fewer than 10 percent of Guantanamo's prisoners were high-value terrorist operatives, according to Michael Scheuer who headed the agency's bin Laden unit through 1999 and resigned in 2004. Most of the men were probably foot soldiers at best, he said, who were "going to know absolutely nothing about terrorism." Guantanamo prisoners might be pumped for information about how they learned to fight, which could help American soldiers facing trained Islamic insurgencies. But the Defense Department and FBI interrogators at Guantanamo were interested more in catastrophic terrorism than in combat practicalities. They kept asking "every one of these guys about 9/11 and when was the next attack," questions most of these low-level prisoners couldn't answer, Scheuer said.
Even as the CIA was deciding that most of the prisoners at Guantanamo didn't have much to say, Pentagon officials were getting frustrated with how little the detainees were saying. So they ramped up the pressure and gave interrogators more license."
Oops. To steal a line out a Tarrintino movie: "If you beat this guy enough he'll tell you he started the Chicago fire, but that don't necessarily make it so."
Torturing actual criminals is morally suspect to begin with. Torturing innocent people . . . well, that's just damn disgusting.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.04.2008 @ 11:12
@Dale B:
"Could it be possible that we might not be in this war on terror if the ‘rule of law’ had been enforced, especially with regard to the immigration laws? Had the immigration laws been strictly enforced, by every level of government of this sovereign nation, there may never have been the tragedy of 9/11."
Sorry -- you lost me. None of the hijackers had legit visas? One was kept out because he couldn't get clearance, and they rest went ahead without him.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.04.2008 @ 23:01
I often disagree (angrily, violently, explosively) with your opinions Rick, but I respect that you arrive at each independently . . . no blind obedience. You may end up deciding on the right-wing answer to a particular issue, but you don't choose the answer because it's right-wing. A rare and commendablde commodity.
To the unbelievable hate-spewing nimrods in the comments:
1)retire05 Said:
"Your name is Mark Lundsford. You KNOW John Couey has your tiny daughter . . . "
I'll make it easier for you. Scenario: Somebody breaks into your house and in a fit of drunken obnoxiousness urinates on your irreplacable family heirloom, destroying it. You KNOW it was Bob down the street. Do you want to go over to his house and beat the S.O.B. senseless for his offense to you? Of course you do. But you can't because of the one flaw in your scenario . . . the word "know".
We don't KNOW that the prisoners in Guantanamo are terrorist bombers. The overwhelmingly vast majority were picked up by bounty hunters and sold to us as "oh, yeah, that guy I have tied up in the back of my truck is totally a terrorist." Guess what? Most of them have been "wrong place, wrong time" innocent -- NOT terrorists, NOT killers, NOT able to provide any useful information because they didn't know any damn thing.
Take your scenario, and keep every word exactly the same but change the name "John Couey" to "Bob Anderson". Mr. Lunsford still KNOWS Bob has his baby trapped somewhere . . . but Mr. Lunsford is dead-flat wrong. No problem with drowning Mr. Anderson, an innocent person? Change "Bob Anderson" to "Retire05", or to "retire05's son/daughter/wife/husband". You'll be fine with Mr. Lunsford kidnapping and abusing them? If you say yes, I'm calling you a liar. Mr. Lunsford has to do what he has to do . . . even if it makes him as much of a criminal as the real kidnapper.
This might come as a bit of shock to you, but there's a reason the last 700+ years of British Common Law developed the rules they have, from the Great Writ down to our system today -- because the system you advocate NEVER will reach justice. Ever. Not an opinion, a historically demonstrable fact.2)Junk Science Skeptic Said:
"I have no doubt in my mind that even the most dovish bleeding heart on the planet would, if the lives of their loved ones were specifically at stake, resort to prisoner interrogation means and methods that would make Eichmann blush, . . . "
Now, for double bonus points, see if you can guess why the victim's immediate family members aren't put in charge of interrogation.3)Roy Mustang Said:
"Wouldn’t imprisonment in itself be considered torture under the current politically correct guidelines?"
Nope -- it's a restraint of liberty, unpleasant but not torturous. I find it hard to believe that you're bright enough to operate a computer but can't distinguish between a locked door and beating somebody or drowning them.6) Dale in Atlanta says:
"What we do disagree on, is WHAT constitutes torture.
I say, as before, and again now, the following do NOT constitute “torture”:
a) waterboarding
b) sleep deprivation
c) stress positions
d) loud noise stress
e) temperature manipulation
Rick, I was in the Marine Corps, I had to undergo all those and worse, to just to prove I belonged! (Sorry, I lied, I did not go to SERE school, so I was not ever “waterboarded”).
But, I know that we do, legally, Waterboard hundreds of SERE, Pilots, and other snake-eater types on a yearly basis in different training courses in the US Miliatry and Government.
Sorry, it is NOT “torture”.. . . and we waterboard the SERE trainees as an initiation ritual? Funny, I thought they got waterboarded so they would know what it feels like if they get captured and TORTURED. Since (as you admit) you wern't in SERE, how about we go to the opinion of a former SERE master instructor? You know, somebody who actually has been there:
"As a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California I know the waterboard personally and intimately. SERE staff were required undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception. I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school’s interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques used by the US army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What was not mentioned in most articles was that SERE was designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim. If this is the case, then waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique." Malcolm Nance, http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/ , pp.4You define what you personally think does and does not constitute torture. It differs from my definition. Both differ from another's person definition. That's why each person doesn't get to define the word for themselves. If my definition doesn't include "b) anything sexual, except verbal secual humiliation" for example, I can have you raped, confident that I'm not torturing you and you're just a hippie whining wimp. Definition of Torture is codified under 22 CFR 95.1(b) (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/03jul20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/aprqtr/22cfr95.1.htm) -- you don't get to decide if you want to obey it or not, and neither does the President.
p.s. subtle difference between SERE trainees, fraternity pledges, and prisoners -- the trainees and pledges can stop the abuse by walking away. Prisoners cannot. Some people voluntarily cut themselves -- does that mean if I start carving my initials into a prisoner's chest it's not torture because somebody else voluntarily likes that stuff?
7)Michael Berry Said:
"You say that 'When a document is written in order to justify what otherwise would be illegal acts during peacetime'... sorry, but I don’t believe we are experiencing peace. I believe in the war on terror, not because Pres. Bush calls it that, but because I know first-hand what they want to do- I have been in the intel biz my entire life. Peacetime rule do not apply here, and respectfully believe that you are naive to think that we are."
Excellent -- as a lifelong intel professional I'm sure you know that terrorists didn't just pop up in the last decade. Since you realize that there have ALWAYS been groups that want to attack and harm Americans, I presume your position is that there is never, ever a time of peace. America has always been at war, will always be at war, and must always operate under the "ticking-timebomb-under-an-orphanage-24-meets-Die-Hard" rules of engagement. Forever. That will certainly save American lives.
You disagree with Rick saying that we aren't in a state of peace. Rick didn't say we were. Your quote of him clearly shows he doesn't think we are.8)bear1909 Said:
"That isn’t achieveable by applying rights and statutes designed for organized military fighting and law abiding civilians."
Just play that statement through. We a nation of "organized military fighting and law abiding civilians", meaning we follow the laws and rules of the military and society. Because our enemies are not, we have to fight them by ceasing to be a nation of organized military fighting and law abiding civilians. Of course, the fact that the terrorists behead prisoners is disgusting, because they shouldn't do that to us since we are entitled to be treated as "a nation of organized military fighting and law abiding civilians", even though we specifically choose not to be. You are ENDORSING AND CONDONING the terrorists beheading prisoners. Unbelievable.9)mannning Said:
"The question is if lives are saved by torturing for information, should one refrain because of moral inhibitions? What, pray tell, is moral about war and terrorism that should hold us back from saving those we can if we act?"
No, that's NOT the question -- that's the question that makes torture look excusable. Let me ask you the same question with one addition:
"The question is if lives are NOT saved by torturing for information, should one refrain because of moral inhibitions?"
I hope you answered "of course." Presuming you did, then the clear issue is the qualifier to the question. A qualifier you cannot possibly know the answer to. Keeping in mind (a) there will always be some person/group that wishes America harm and (b) there is always a possibility, regardless of whether you torture everybody on the planet or not, that there is a ticking bomb somewhere, is it worth selling America's soul to not make us any safer?I'll stop there. Conservatives always stood for principles in my mind. Making the hard stand against the "easy way" because what is right and wrong is more important. Conservative has never been equilivant with "bloodlust-fueled emotionally-dominated children" . . . until now. Rick has shamed you all.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.04.2008 @ 14:24
CAN WE JUST WALK AWAY FROM IRAQ?
@MooseHa:
"Hi Rick.
Plese explain the apparant confusion between these two statements you made:
1)US military could do everything that was asked of it and more and still come up short thanks to the balking politicians in Iraq
2)Administration failures to implement a strategy that would win the war"Don't mean to speak for Rick, but the statements made sense to me by distinguishing between "US Military" and "Administration". The Military is not the Administration -- they are the soldiers that perform and accomplish military objectives. Since the Administration has no strategy for winning (aside from just hoping everything gets better), the military can be ordered to fight enemy X, take control of location Y, train people Z . . . and while they may successfully accomplish those tasks, none of those tasks will cause the Iraqi politicians to get their act together. The military wil win the battles, but the war will be lost because the Iraqi politicians aren't coming together like the Administration just assumed they would. No Iraqi political progress, no end to the war, and the military "wins" but the Admin loses.
@ Syn:
"How come so many Americans FORGOT what happened on 9/11/2001?"
I sure haven't forgot. Not really sure what that has to do with the war in Iraq . . . since Hussein and "freeing the oppressed Iraqis" had/have absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 strike. Remember AQ? Bin Laden? Y'know . . . the people that actually committed the crime? Or did you FORGET what happened on 9/11/2001?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.04.2008 @ 23:45
I'm curious to know to what extent the "Maliki running to the frontlines to personally lead the Ultimate Push Against Evil" was discussed with the US before he did it. If there were no discussions, then it seems IMO as if he decided to take this opportunity to score maximum "tough guy" political points, with the assumption that if the fighting goes bad the US will have to bail him out (the Iraqi Army getting their arses handed to them by Sadr, painting Maliki as impotent and Sadr as an anti-occupation hero, is a non-option). Frankly, this seems more likely than he discussed it with the US first . . . why on earth would we back such a dangerous stunt? Does Maliki have any tactical training? Given Sadr's past resilience, and the strength of his troops, a push against him/them would seem to dictate total commitment by as many troops an assets as possible. He cannot be allowed to "win" this fight, and a battle that leaves him still ensconsed in his power base will be a definite win for him.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.03.2008 @ 18:52
"Having spent so much time out of the country, shouldn’t he have been concerned about 'raising himself' to be an American rather than a black American? It may be a small point but I believe it is revealing nonetheless."
It certainly is . . . but more about you, and less about Obama. That statement seems to imply that the issue of his race is as secondary (at best) aspect of living as an American, something that doesn't shape one's existence as an American. All he needs to do is focus on the apple pies, and once he "gets" that (assuming he has to learn how to be an American, rather than he already IS an American) he'll be able to politely reflect on issues of race over the 4th of July BBQ.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.03.2008 @ 14:23
Spoken like a true non-black American.
@CI:
"No busboy I haven’t. Please provide the proof"
okay.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/13/eveningnews/main635966.shtml
video shows the emotional "rockstar" atmosphere the people are partaking in (granted, I'm sure you can see it as polite and respectful admiration, if you like). First section of the text:"There was a full-throated roar of support for President Bush at a New Mexico rally -- adoring crowds and a beaming candidate -- the stuff great political theater is made of -- and it's no accident, reports CBS New White House Correspondent Bill Plante.
Said a rally organizer, 'I wanna hear lots of cheering in there for the president!'
The event tickets went to busloads of pre-screened party faithful -- who poured in hours in advance -- to be greeted and organized by Bush campaign staffers.
'We don't want anybody with a dry throat. We want you yelling for the president!' they were told."
even FoxNews wondered about the pre-screening:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153720,00.htmlhttp://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/propaganda_town_hall_meeting_invites.htm
http://www.jumpcut.com/view?id=C6B2643A23E111DC83E7000423CEF682I've got to go to work now, so I'll try to find some more (and more recent, although he suprisingly doesn't seem to be having many town hall meetings anymore) tomorrow when I'm back.
p.s.@Casey Tompkins: not sure who ellison is, but that's a name or psuedonym I've never used. Sorry. My name's Mike Koughan and online I only go by busboy.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 10.03.2008 @ 09:07
"He does not engender the same fawning, fainting, chest heaving, breathless, hyper-sexual responses to his presence as Barack Obama."
Well I agree W doesn't engender a "hyper-sexual" response . . . but I haven't seen any orgies breaking out at Obama rallies either, now that I think about it.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.03.2008 @ 14:48
as for the rest . . . really? You haven't seen the hand picked rallies for the last 6 years, where Bush is asked by almost-crying-in-extacy yahoos why God is so unfair to make him stop being President? Guess those were all doctored videos from the evil Left. Darn that media conspiracy.
