<p>If one US death was prevented nobody really gives a crap what happened to some terrorists.</p>
<p>If that were the case, she wouldn’t have to LIE about it.</p>
<p>They get a little free, impromptu Navy SEAL training, designed to make people quit. Get over it. Secrecy is the stock in trade of the military. Someone has a problem with secrecy? Come on.</p>
<p>Bush 9/6/06:
</p>
<p>Honestly, it gives you chills doesn’t it? If it’s so legal, and so safe, and so in comformance, then why can’t he talk about it? Why did he lie about it all this time? </p>
<p>Not only that, but everyone already knew about Ramzi bin Al Shibh. This was not news. And anyway, since when do the ends justify the means when what we’re talking about is torturing detainees held in secret prisons for cryin’ out loud? This is America!?</p>
<p>Why do the media let them get away with this incessant, almost compulsive lying?</p>
<p>
Only if you live in lala-land. If you honestly think you would prefer interrogation by terrorists over interrogation by U.S. military or CIA personnel, you are a dupe and a naif.</p>
<p>driver: I honestly do not think we should lower ourselves to their level. What exactly are we fighting for, if that is the end? I remain, a dupe and a naif.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our lives. </p>
<p>…lets start there.</p>
<p>FS: Wait – are you over in Afghanistan or Iraq???</p>
<p>
We don’t. They drill holes in people with electric drills. We “waterboard” (standard military training for US military personnel at high risk of capture–I have friends and relatives who have gone through it.) They saw people’s heads off with rusty kitchen knives…we play loud and annoying music at them. They remove body parts, slowly and painfully…we keep the lights on when they’re trying to sleep. Their prisoners sit for years in basements, chained to beds. Our prisoners get medical and dental care, balanced meals, and Korans. Don’t go down the equivalency route.</p>
<p>Weenie, </p>
<p>you are dreaming…wake up.</p>
<p>but didn’t Bush say that torture was against American values…</p>
<p>It’s not torture and even if it were, sometimes you have to put your values on the shelf and do what you have to do. In similar circumstances in the future I hope thy would do it again. We are not playing patty-cake with the Russians here. If it were in their interest they would saw your head off in a second. Just ask that US peace activist how his visit went.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/11/iraq.hostage/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/11/iraq.hostage/index.html</a></p>
<p>The violations of human rights should be challenged, but should also be evaluated in the context of the current wartime and the cowardly and inhuman nature of the enemy. </p>
<p>However, the most salient issue about this debate–if there’s actually one–is the amazing display of hypocrisy. I am openly wondering how many of the current quasi-hysterical white flag wavers would be so vocal in their criticism and outrage if the news was about torturing enemies in the Balkans or other parts of the world when Slick Willy and Madeleine Notsobright were at the helm of the free world. Again, except for Mini, were any of you shedding a tear for the starving Iraqi children? Let me dust off my abacus to figure the possibble count! </p>
<p>And, by the way, do you really believe that the CIA and the Pentagon waited until January 2001 to purchase of manual on torture on Ebay?</p>
<p>Re Condi’s intelligence:</p>
<p>I was close to one of her mentors, someone who was really responsible for getting her involved with Stanford administration and ultimately becoming provost. He was a huge fan of hers, going back to the late-70s, and also a life-long Republican.</p>
<p>In the spring of 2000, he had dinner with her and George Schultz, and came back just livid. “You wouldn’t believe the crap that was coming out of her mouth. Stupid, jingoistic, simplistic. Contempt for any notion of international law. She thinks she will be National Security Advisor if Bush wins, but she has to toe the line and it’s like she gave herself a lobotomy. I barely recognized my friend. George couldn’t believe it either; he kept yelling at her ‘You can’t really mean that!’ I may have to vote for Gore. It’s just too scary to think that American foreign policy would be like that.”</p>
<p>Well, I certainly agree with Xiggi - deliberately killing half a million children (not only through starvation, but by bombing wastewater treatment plants, and failing to allow very basic medical supplies into the country until European nations charge you with genocide and start to make nosie about it) is on a much greater scale than a little “waterboarding” (not “torture” of course, even though the President says it is) between “friends”. The difference, however, is that Clinton/Albright were pretty open about their attempt at genocide (going after the children rather than Saddam Hussein himself or military installations), while Powell/Rice choose to lie to cover up U.S. misdeeds. And the other difference is that the use of “non-torture” gives free reign to other countries to do the same to U.S. folks when they are captured as “enemy combatants”.</p>
<p>As for the torture manuals, they’ve had 'em down at Fort Benning, in multiple languages, and been training in their use, for an awfully long time. Just ask my Iranians friends what an “Apollo helmet” is.</p>
<p>xiggi, what in the world are you talking about? Has anyone suggested we tortured people in the Balkans? Didn’t we haul everyone into some international war crimes court for lengthy, lengthy, due-process-ridden trials? And, looking back, wasn’t the whole intervention in Bosnia actually something of a model for getting actual good results? We had minimal casualties, lots of partners, a relatively brief active intervention, and things seem to be working out not so terribly there, everything considered.</p>
<p>There are lots of reasons not to like Clinton or Albright, but Bosnia sure isn’t one of them. (Clinton also authorized an attempt to assassinate Osama bin Laden. Didn’t work, obviously, but if it had I could have found it in my heart to forgive such a clear breach of due process.)</p>
<p>JHS, didn’t you miss the word … “IF”. </p>
<p>And, for what it is worth, I would not be using the words Balkans, Clinton, and model (as in successful model) in the same sentence, but you indirectly made my point about looking at the pre-2001 years with colored glasses ranging from rose to pitch black.</p>
<p>I’m not looking at the Clinton years with rose-colored glasses, believe me. If you want to talk about a cluster****, Somalia (and its ■■■■■■■ child, Rwanda) would be a good example. I actually share Mini’s issues with the Iraq embargo, although I don’t know what I think we SHOULD have done. And I certainly wouldn’t argue that the US was perfect in the Bosnia crisis. But I would argue that if you do a head-to-head between the big Clinton military-intervention gamble in the Balkans and the big Bush gamble in Iraq, the score is about 17 to (1,083).</p>
<p>This discussion and the position of those who “abhor” the interrogation methods proven to have saved lives is what gives me the cold chills about the prospect of the democrats retaking any level of power in Washington. My only hope is that xiggi is exactly right and that if/when the tables are turned that the Dems will do exactly the same thing as the Bush administration when it comes to protecting this country. All this soap-opera-ish talk about how this indicates “that we have lost our values” is nothing but hog wash. If we at any time had to fight a war using the rules of war as proposed by the likes of the ACLU, we would never had prevailed. How anyone can get upset about making someone who plotted the death of 3,000 Americans “uncomfortable” when the result of that interrogation resulted in the saving of even more lives is incomprehensible to me.</p>
<p>I posted this link in the other thread on interrogation but will repeat it here. Look at the number of plots that have been disrupted using the techniques of this administration (and also note safeguards and openness of the process - including keeping Congress informed) and ask yourself, would you have preferred that the intended victims of these plots to now be dead? If one of these victims was a family member, would you still claim that the way of the ACLU is the correct way?
<a href=“http://www.odni.gov/announcements/content/TheHighValueDetaineeProgram.pdf[/url]”>http://www.odni.gov/announcements/content/TheHighValueDetaineeProgram.pdf</a></p>
<p>
But there is one huge difference. Not a single person saw the situation in the Balkans as a threat to national security. However, despite the current claims of the political opportunists trying to smear Bush, the universal concern was that Saddam presented a very real threat to regional and global security - enough so that the Senate with heavy backing from the Clinton administration voted unanimously that the Saddam regime should be overthrown. They have not even gone this far with the Iranian or North Korean regime.</p>