You are the one that said that we non-vets didn`t have anything to say you wanted to hear. It has been your choice to reply ,or not, all along.

"If that is the case, don`t bother to reply to anything that we non-veterans have to say,"
+
Fine, don't bother replying to anything a veteran has to say.

I'm not sure I'd believe them, either.... It's always nice for a General to have a war to play with. We saw that in Vietnam and Desert Storm, too (I wasn't too happy with Colin Powell...if he'd had a pair, we might never have had to invade Iraq AGAIN, and a lot of people died because of it).

I`ve been told before not to believe anything written in a "liberal" newspaper or on the "wrong" TV network. That said, the article about Al-Queada leads one to believe the information came from the Command structure, McChrystal, in Afghanistan.

DIGriz, I have seen the 100 Al-Queada figure in many articles, the latest being an Associated Press story dated 10/08/2009, entitled, "Source: Al-Queada, Not Taliban, Obama`s Focus."

andre, I gave you my source, more than once, the Senate Intelligence Report in September of 2006 that I quoted. I don`t have a comprehension problem, you have told me more than once my comments on military matters don`t count because I didn`t serve, just as you said to Panama Red. If that is the case, don`t bother to reply to anything that we non-veterans have to say, if Red is even a non-vet, I don`t know.

pharm, evidently you have a comprehension problem. I NEVER said you couldn't comment on military matters. I said, you don't know the inner workings of the military and all you have is speculation or second hand information. You keep bring up this "other" poster stuff, am I suppose to care about that? I'll say it to anyone that tries to give information about something they have no intricate inside working knowledge of , understand what I just said?
+
Show me where it was debunked, just because you say so,that doesn't fly. I don't believe your source anymore than you do mine.
+
In my opinion, any war can be won. It just depends on how much you are willing to devastate your enemy. In the "modern" approach to war, collateral damage is the buzz word. In WW2, we intentionally inflicted damage on the enemy civilian population. That is what the terrorist do now. Of course now, we have to "play" fair because there are so many people concerned about the terrorists well being.

Where did the information come from that there was roughly 100-200 Al Queda in Afghanistan?? I hear nothing of the sort. Any A.Q. that are left in the area - that havn't moved to bases in Africa - are based in Pakistan in South Waziristan and/or Balochistan. It's just Taliban here, now. We never hear of any actions against A.Q. any more, even in Pakistan.

andre, you said I shouldn`t comment on military matters because I didn`t serve, and you have said it to at least one other poster. Your experts in the military said more troops could win the war, I only said if it could be done now it could have been done before when the amount of troops was smaller and Al Queada was almost eradicated by them. More troops would have made a difference, or would they? maybe more troops won`t work now either, that is my opinion. Why should I believe your web cite when the Senate Committee debunked it 8 months after it was published?

For what it's worth, I think Pharm has a firm grasp of what's at stake and possible here in Afghanistan. America felt the pain of Vietnam, then laughed when Russian had their own in Afghanistan in the 80's, and even helped to defeat them like the Russians and Chicoms helped the North Viets and Viet Cong. I don't think we learned our lesson the first time, and are going to repeat our mistakes. There is no "win" here, as no matter how much we can make them submit to our will while we occupy their "country", when we leave, it's back to tribal business as usual for them, that's all. This country will never have an effective central government. Even now, the U.S. Military and Afghan government allow two warlords in two northern provinces to rule in lieu of the government. In exchange, they supposedly keep the Taliban out.

"You are the one that keeps saying that I can`t comment on military matters because I never served, so when I cite military commanders, they ARE YOUR experts, because they are serving."
+
You are really starting to lose it. I've never said you couldn't comment on anything. I have said you don't know the inner workings of the military having never been a member, thus your knowledge in those matters is nothing more than conjecture.
+
As far as proof goes, if you don't believe any article someone else writes, then I guess yours deserves the same amount of believability. You make claims that more troops will get the job done, but have no real evidence to support that. It's just your opinion what would or would not have happened. You wouldn't happen to be related to Nostradamus by any chance would you?

RAF, it depends on the war. In Afghanistan, we will have to not only defeat Al Qeada, the Taliban, but also "win" over the populace in support of a government we can live with. The corrupt one there now is a mess, and cannot seem to win a fair election. Supposedly, Al Qeada is down to a hundred or so in Afghanistan, disorganized, almost ineffectual. We could try to "buy" the Taliban to our side, but only if they will agree to government mandates, which doesn`t look likely. The more troops we send in, the more it looks to the people that we are invaders rather than saviors, and that makes it more volatile. Would you consider it a win if we, or even the UN, has to keep large amounts of troops in Afghanistan for 10-20 years or more? I wouldn`t, and I doubt the bulk of the US would either. If we had 150,000 troops to send in, like Russia, could we win? Maybe we could run the country, but the war would be continuous because we would be invaders. To me it cannot be won.

andre, go to USA Today, Washington Post/Times, New York papers, any news outlet, and see the write ups of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report in 2006. The Bush administration used defectors testimony to push their claims of WMD`s, terror camps, meetings that never happened, so you might have a point. But, then there is that Senate report itself, that doesn`t use defectors stories, but "boots on the ground" intelligence. You are the one that keeps saying that I can`t comment on military matters because I never served, so when I cite military commanders, they ARE YOUR experts, because they are serving.

"Afghanistan cannot be "won""
-
Pharm what is your definition of win or won in respect of a war?

"I went to the site you mentioned, written by Cheney`s biography author. Where are the big follow up articles if this was true? There are none because those camps were described by Iraqi defectors as "anti-terrorist" camps."
+
You believe "defectors"? Why doesn't that surprise me? There has to be "follow up articles" for proof? Remember that when you post an article supporting your reasoning. I'll expect to see "follow up articles".
+
"Your military experts are asking for those troops"
+
Now they are "my" military experts? I'm not in charge.
+
Senate Intelligence Committee, 09/08/2006( before the Democrats were voted in), "no indications that training of Al Qaeda operatives at Salman Pak.." "no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak...' "The base was found to be what the Iraqis said it was, a training camp for counter terrorism operations."
+
Where is your article and "follow up articles" to support this claim?

You could send another 200,000 troops here, and in the end, it wouldn't make a difference. If you want a better idea of what conflict is like in this region, read everything about Afghanistan at Globalsecurity.org, specifically the Russian Occupation, which included thousands of advisors from Czechoslovakia and Cuba, as well as almost 120,000 Russians by 1985. Our military and NATO may be better, but in the end, the results will be the same IMO. These folks here are not going to renounce Islam, and therin lies the answer to the outcome. Not all might want the Taliban, but the majority simply want us off their lawn and will help the Taliban to make that happen. We cannot change the evolution of their culture. They have to deal with it themselves.

Senate Intelligence Committee, 09/08/2006( before the Democrats were voted in), "no indications that training of Al Qaeda operatives at Salman Pak.." "no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak...' "The base was found to be what the Iraqis said it was, a training camp for counter terrorism operations."

I went to the site you mentioned, written by Cheney`s biography author. Where are the big follow up articles if this was true? There are none because those camps were described by Iraqi defectors as "anti-terrorist" camps.

Your military experts are asking for those troops, if they can win with that many now, they could have done it before, maybe with even less. I made a statement, just like when I told you that we wouldn`t have gone into Iraq if 9-11 hadn`t happened. It`s my opinion, and common sense tells me it`s right. You deal with this enemy the same way as any other, kill/capture, or send them packing. Torture will not do it. Does it work when they do it to us, have we quit? I didn`t go to that site you posted because it`s old news, they have met more than once in the last ten days or so. Do you really think Obama doesn`t know what McChrystal has said he needs? There is more than one adviser you know, and the general is only one opinion. Afghanistan cannot be "won", ask the Russians. The people don`t want us there, we ran out on them years ago, after pumping them up to fight the Russians, then left them on their own with a broken country.

" If the military thinks 40,000 troops can "win' the war now, they could have done it a long time ago."
+
Your president won't make that decision. He's only met once with the general he put in command.
+
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu...
+
You ask someone else for proof but don't provide any yourself for the statements you make? Why should I be surprised?
+
It appears you are an idealistic person with no real idea of how to deal with the type of enemy this country now faces. These terrorist are no ordinary enemy that can be dealt with in the usual manor. People had better learn this before it really becomes too late.

Nobody said be nice to them, just follow the rules. If the military thinks 40,000 troops can "win' the war now, they could have done it a long time ago. ask them for proof it will work now.Saddam was a sadistic dictator, not a terrorist. Where is your proof that he was one, and that there were more there? Prove to me that Iraq was involved in 9-11, or admit we shouldn`t have been there.

Oh darn to you also.

"There were no terrorists in Iraq"
+
You are kidding aren't you? You really believe there were NO terrorists in Iraq at all before the war? saddam himself was a terrorist so I know there was at least one, but I'm sure it would be a safe bet that there were more.
+
"What a waste of money, times, and most of all, lives"
+
Is this statement about the Vietnam war, in which the democrats were in charge? Or, is this statement made by you because a republican was in office?
+
"They want 40-80,000 more troops for Afghanistan, how many could have been sent in 2002 through 2009 to finish the job if we hadn`t been bogged down in Iraq?
+
I'm still waiting for the proof that a "finished outcome" would have been attained if your "suggestion" would have been used.
+
"Maybe we should water board all the POW`s and ask them why they are fighting us."
+
They hate us. They want to destroy our way of life. They want us to convert to their religion. They don't need any more reasons. This is what a lot of people don't seem to understand. Being nice to them will not change their intentions. This is a concept that people like you don't seem to grasp.

They want 40-80,000 more troops for Afghanistan, how many could have been sent in 2002 through 2009 to finish the job if we hadn`t been bogged down in Iraq? There were no terrorists in Iraq until we invaded, then, according to the CIA, it became the largest terrorist training ground in the world. What a waste of money, times, and most of all, lives.

Our country has prosecuted water boarding as torture for over 100 years, just because a lawyer says it is not does not change the law. Maybe we should water board all the POW`s and ask them why they are fighting us.

Oh, darn ...

"We know that our abuses created more terrorists"
+
Are you trying to imply that terrorists became terrorists simply because they were told that the US abused some of their cohorts, and they wouldn't have done so for any other reason, just because they said so? Are you really that naive to believe what a terrorist says without reserve? And you call me out of touch.
+
"If we had concentrated there , we would be out instead of stuck like we are now"
+
And you base this statement on what proof?
+
"even McCain interviewed some that said the abuses caused them to fight us."
+
They may have made those statements to McCain, but how does one verify what a terrorist says is the truth? Take his word for it? Should we just believe a person that kills innocent people without question? Really?
+
You keep referring to the use of torture by the US. Exactly what do you determine to be torture, not what someone else thinks because there are opinions from both sides of this issue.
+
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc...
+
Notice the word "severe". If by this definition water boarding is "severe", then should the people that administer this to our own troops be prosecuted even though our troops agree to it? Wouldn't that still be a violation regardless of whether they agreed to it or not?
+
"You said we don`t have to follow the rules pertaining to torture, why not?"
+
I don't consider water boarding torture, you do. I don't think making someone uncomfortable is in the torture class. You do.
+

I'm no expert on where we are going to get our oil from 20 years from now, but all the predictions that I've read indicate that China will eclipse our consumption of both oil and raw materials by then. That may make things a bit tricky for us, since they already occupy this hemisphere. And people think gas prices are high now....
-
I should add to my previous post, that the war we fight in Afghanistan is entirely a religious war. Just because we don't see it that way doesn't mean that it isn't. To the Taliban, it is, as evidenced by the large numbers of foreign fighters that have swelled their ranks in the last year, which are increasing. Those guys are not here to fight for the sovereignity of Afghanistan or the Taliban - they are here to kill infidel crusaders that threaten Muslim peoples. The Taliban are not terrorists per se, they are religious fanatic thugs, that's all. That's why I think we've done enough damage here. The purpose was to punish those who carried out the 9/11 attacks, not to polish a turd to try to make it look like a democracy. Just my opinion.

DIGriz, you are absolutely right about Saudi Arabia, the money and power is concentrated at the top. The rest of the country follows orders. As for the oil, it will not always be in this hemisphere, and we are cultivating the ones who have the largest reserves.

Good post, Pharm. Please allow me to add my two cents worth based on what you wrote:
-
"It is my personal opinion that Saudi Arabia is the largest "country" that sponsors terrorism, but because of their oil we overlook them."
-
I don't think that Saudi Arabia as a country sponsors terrorists. And we get twice as much oil from our North and South neighbors (22% out of 54% imported). I'd question Venuzuela's intent more than S.A.'s. They are, however, a fertile breeding ground for Islamic Fundementalists, who ARE terrorists, probably due to the fact that the elite in S.A. are a bunch of hypocrites with a Koran in one hand, and a glass of whiskey in the other. If they want to snub Mohammed, they just take the bridge to Bahrain or fly to their flats in London.
-
"We can`t "win" in Afghanistan because they don`t want to be rid of the Taliban, maybe we can get Al Queda out, but that would mean chasing them into Pakistan. The central government will never really run Afghanistan no matter how long we stay there."
-
I heartily agree. It is arrogant of the coalition to think we are going to win enough hearts and minds here to change anything. The Afghans are benefiting monetarily from us being here (except for the bombs...), but they are patiently waiting for us to leave, as leave we will. There is no possibility of winning anything here - only killing and getting killed. These people are tribal in a country which lacks even the most rudimentary modern infrastructure. They have no national identity except in Kabul, and Kabul cannot hope to control everything within it's borders. There are areas where even U.S. troops have not been in years, let alone Afghan National Police. They have no reason to go there. No central government will work anywhere but Kabul and it's environs. As far as chasing Al Queda into Pakistan, that's where they are now, whatever is left of them. Most have moved their operations to Somalia and Sudan, according to intelligence reports. So this is for all intents and purposes, a continuing police action against the Taliban for letting Al Queda set up shop here a decade ago. If Bin Laden had been in Sudan instead of here after 9/11, we never would have come here, we'd be in Sudan. I think you'll see Pakistan as an excuse for staying here in the coming months. They've got their hands full with the Taliban in Waziristan, and Punjabis on top of that, and the excuse will be that if we leave, they'll just launch their attacks from Afghanistan, will get the upper hand against the Pakistani government, and then get nuclear weapons. You'll hear that, I'm sure of it.

"You got to stop calling for the destruction of those who do not agree with you.
That is what is bringing the worlds hate down upon Islam."

"In 37 wars, Islam is involved in 34 of them.
That means they are involved in over 90 % of the wars as I said in the first place.

By the way, I am not trying to justify or criticsize any of these causes.
That does not matter.

What matters is that Islam is involved in over 90% of the armed conflict in the world today or just yesterday before three areas settled.
One way or the other.

What does it mean?
Well to me, it means that Islam is a terrorist religion and always seems to be involved in strife some wheres or other.
You can not deny that. "

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/islam-b...

You go after them,in Afghanistan, where they were, not Iraq. If we had concentrated there , we would be out instead of stuck like we are now. Just because they torture, are we supposed to? We know that our abuses created more terrorists, captured ones had flyers calling for "Jihad" because of the abuse, even McCain interviewed some that said the abuses caused them to fight us.

Pharm-

Ok. How would anyone deal with what these extremsits do (bombs, cut heads, roasdside bombs)to Westerner? Turn the other cheek? It's clear these folks will never be changed.

I can`t do anything about how our soldiers are treated, neither can you or anyone else commenting here. I believe Saudi Arabia to be the biggest "sponsor" of terrorism, not because all terrorists are from there, they are not. I think they supply the bulk of the funds, and the ideas, that the terrorists have. Muslims in many countries are indoctrinated in a perverted form of their religion and hatred of the US from a very early age, in countries that routinely behead, chop off limbs, lash, their criminals. Terrorists do not follow a true Muslim religion. You said we don`t have to follow the rules pertaining to torture, why not? Is it because others don`t, or we are just too good to follow the rules we have agreed to?

You say the terrorists are "from" those countries, does that translate into they "represent" those countries?
+
"As for torture, we`re back to where we started, it is NOT OK to torture because somebody else does."
+
No we are not back to where we started. I never made any statement saying we should do something because someone else does. What I said to you is "why don't YOU take your idealistic views to the enemy and convince them of your views if you are so adamant about them. Do something, don't just talk about it on a blog. Show some real time concern and action. I may be wrong, but I don't think I have ever seen you address the fact that our men and women have been tortured by these terrorists with as much concern as you seem to have for them.

It is my personal opinion that Saudi Arabia is the largest "country" that sponsors terrorism, but because of their oil we overlook them. We can`t "win" in Afghanistan because they don`t want to be rid of the Taliban, maybe we can get Al Queda out, but that would mean chasing them into Pakistan. The central government will never really run Afghanistan no matter how long we stay there. As for torture, we`re back to where we started, it is NOT OK to torture because somebody else does. If we stay in the UN, we should follow their mandates.

pharm, speaking of being out of touch. Your last comment seems to imply that I was speaking for some majority. If you read the comment I posted answering your questions, I stated "personally" my answers were no, I don't believe in that phony organization called the UN.
+
"I don`t think I could change anybodys mind about the way they run their country, or themselves"
+
Who said anything about changing the way someone runs a country? I suggested you take your idealistic views to the enemy and convince them to abide by your anti-torture views. It would take more than talk I'll bet, doing would present the problem for you.
+
By the way, what countries are you referring to by this statement:
+
"I don`t think I could change anybodys mind about the way they run their country"
+
What "country" do the terrorist represent?

Whether I like or dislike the UN is not the issue. If we are a member, and expect other nations to follow their rules, we must also. This country is hypocritical if they want others to follow the treaties, organizational rules, that they signed up for, yet we don`t have to. I don`t think I could change anybodys mind about the way they run their country, or themselves, I can`t even get you to see how out of touch you are.

Thank you panama, you wouldn't know what someone proved if they laid it out step by step for you.

pharm, you deduced all that from the fact that I personally don't believe in an organization called the "United Nations", a joke organization at best. Rife with corruption.
+
"I guess the fanatics are not all foreign ones."
+
You must be referring to yourself. I know you like the UN. You would love to turn our sovereignty over to them. If you have so much concern for our soldiers, take your cause to the enemy and convince them to follow your idealistic views, don't just talk about it on a blog.

Thank you andre. You prove my point each and every time you post a comment.

Let`s break the law because others do. Let`s cane our women for drinking beer, and going bare headed because others do. Let`s mutilate our women sexually because others do. We expect other countries to follow UN mandates, but we don`t have to. We don`t want our soldiers tortured, but we will do it to them. I guess the fanatics are not all foreign ones.

"Do you believe the US should follow the rules of the UN as long as they are a member?"
+
No.
+
"Do you believe a soldier should follow the rules of the Geneva Convention and other anti torture statutes that the US has signed?"
+
No
+
I would give more credence to your idealistic values if you took your cause to the enemies of this country and convince them to follow your rules. Until then, you are just giving lip service to what you think we should do and not any real time solution.

panama, You don't exactly demonstrate any high level of mental abilities. I'm sure you think you do simply because you ramble on and on and exemplify the ideology of the left. People on the left know they are sages, just ask them.

fwdjvl, I'll shave my back, you go shave your legs.

OMG! I think these comments have reached a new low. (LOL!)

andre...If you're insinuating that YOU'VE done me wrong, that is the best joke I've heard in a long time. Moreover I was usually the captain of the team and we would ofter NOT pick a know-it-all like you. Now why don't you go shave your back!

I'm on your side andre. Individuals who have not served in the Armed Forces have no right to be posting their opinions on matters concerning our military.
With that in mind, you should be excluded from posting on ANY news story due to your lack of common sense and diminished intellectual capacity.

andre, I don`t have to state why I couldn`t serve, it`s none of your business. The only reason it came up is because you seem to have a bias against those that have not. You have brought it up to at least one other poster that I have seen, and I don`t read all your posts. Do you believe the US should follow the rules of the UN as long as they are a member? Do you believe a soldier should follow the rules of the Geneva Convention and other anti torture statutes that the US has signed? That is what the question is. Those rules are supposed to be posted wherever detainees are held. Do you believe it is OK to put a soldier in a sleeping bag, beat him, sit on his chest until he dies to be legal? Not a terrorist, a soldier in uniform, although all prisoners are supposed to be treated humanely. You don`t have to be a veteran to know the answers to these questions, just a human being.

pharm, who can't handle you little girl? You had to open your mouth again. You did exactly what you were complaining about, being antagonistic and proved my point, clean your own house LITTLE buddy, before you tell others to clean theirs. Blah, blah, blah, rationalize your not serving by dragging something from the Bush administration into this, what a surprise. If you had one of those ailments, you would have stated it long before this. In reality, I don't care if you served or not, if you could or not. I do care when people like you benefit from those that serve the country and then want to criticize the way they do it. You have the luxury of being a Monday morning quarterback. They don't. They have to make decisions in real time.
+
fwdjvl:
Sounds like you were one of those that were never chosen when sides were being picked for a game on the playground and now have a chance to vent that frustration anonymously via your keyboard against any perceived wrong doer.

andre is like the school yard bully. His attitudes towards others is only a cover for his/her personality or mental deficiencies.

andre, you don`t know if I only have one leg, MS, MD, am paralyzed, yet you see fit to denigrate me, and the rest of the 87% of the adult population that are not veterans. I don`t have to have served to know if you join the UN, you follow their rules, or quit. If you sign anti torture agreements, you don`t torture. By the way, "little buddy" is a term of endearment, just ask the Skipper!

You can`t handle me little buddy, your temper runs away with your butt, as you have shown with your last post. I am not the only one you go off on as you can`t take what you try to give. And, again with the not serving guff, maybe you should write Cheney and his five deferments and have a chat.

pharm, want to start something again little girl, bring it on! I like bantering with a liberal do nothing like you. Sit behind your key board and run your mouth, that is what you do best, never really done anything for your country, but have all the ideas about what others should or shouldn't do . Give me that excuse of yours again of why you couldn't join the military. I've heard those phony excuses more times than the number of hairs on a dog.

"Yes I have seen plenty of your history were you think you have proved much...yet it was all untrue, as is the case again this time."

.
Seen plenty? Oh, you mean the previous time I schooled you using legal sources? More willful ignorance from you, I see.

.
Article VI of the Constitution dictates that all treaties that the U.S. is a member of become supreme law. U.S. signatory treaties, like the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture, prohibit the use of waterboarding. It is classifiable as torture, and is illegal. The U.S. has recognized such in its own prosecution of WWII war criminals for waterboarding U.S. POWs. And as for the SERE training, even the CIA Inspector General admits that it is incomparable to the way in which waterboarding was carried out on detainees. Deny all you'd like; there's no logical way around these realities.

Yes I have seen plenty of your history were you think you have proved much...yet it was all untrue, as is the case again this time.

He's not a jerk. He's just "like" a jerk. Good grief.

And you're still left with unproven assertions due to your own misinterpretations/willful ignorance.

.
You know, for someone so concerned with whether SERE is voluntary or not, you sure seem apathetically resigned regarding my proven key assertions that waterboarding is illegal torture incomparable to SERE training. Is your manufactured outrage due to a misinterpretation on your part a way to soothe the frustration of that resignation?

And the dog is chasing his tail again.

"Your first false statement of the REQUIRED training."

.
I don't see anywhere in that quote where I stated that SERE is voluntary. Care to pinpoint it? Anyone else able to comprehend what they read would recognize that the interrogation/detention training is voluntary due to trainees being supplied code words to stop the application of a technique at any time. The ability to stop a specific training scenario at any time makes it voluntary, whether enrollment in the overall SERE program is required or not.

.
"You then, again say it is voluntary."

.
Incorrect. SERE training is required by the voluntarily enlisted, and that has NEVER been refuted. I have always been clear that trainees are volunteers (you admit this is correct by stating: "They choose to serve (voluntary)"), and that interrogation/detention training of those volunteers (an aspect of SERE) is knowingly undertaken (true), and voluntary in exposure (true) through the use of safe-words to stop the application of a technique at any time to reduce the risk of physical and psychological harm to trainees, in addition to available medical and psychological intervention and screening. There is no contradiction in that statement. Whether you choose to disinginuously crop my quotes to make it appear so in order to aid in your self-delusion is up to you.

.
"Your words."

.
And your misinterpretation/ willful ignorance of them.

.
You know, for someone so concerned with whether SERE is voluntary or not, you sure seem apathetically resigned regarding my proven key assertions that waterboarding is illegal torture incomparable to SERE training. Is your manufactured outrage due to a misinterpretation on your part a way to soothe the frustration of that resignation?

"First, SERE interrogation/detention training is voluntary. Trainees have 'code words to stop the application of a technique at any time."
-
Your first false statement of the REQUIRED training; as I have shown you it is required training.
-
"Correct, training is required by the voluntarily enlisted, and that has NEVER been refuted."
-
You then declared it was required.
-
" I have always been clear that trainees are volunteers (you admit this is correct by stating: "They choose to serve (voluntary)"), and that interrogation/detention training of those volunteers (an aspect of SERE) is knowingly undertaken (true), and voluntary..."
-
You then, again say it is voluntary. Your words.

"You are talking in circles."

.
I am? How so? This claim can be disregarded as false if you can't prove it with evidence.

.
"It is required"

.
I've never disputed that SERE is required. I have always been clear that trainees are volunteers (you admit this is correct by stating: "They choose to serve (voluntary)"), and that interrogation/detention training of those volunteers (an aspect of SERE) is knowingly undertaken (true), and voluntary in exposure (true) through the use of safe-words to stop the application of a technique at any time to reduce the risk of physical and psychological harm to trainees, in addition to available medical and psychological intervention and screening.

.
"I provided you FACTS from the military to show you and you still dispute it."

.
I've never disputed that SERE is required. I have always been clear that trainees are volunteers (you admit this is correct by stating: "They choose to serve (voluntary)"), and that interrogation/detention training of those volunteers (an aspect of SERE) is knowingly undertaken (true), and voluntary in exposure (true) through the use of safe-words to stop the application of a technique at any time to reduce the risk of physical and psychological harm to trainees, in addition to available medical and psychological intervention and screening.
You lack proof of your claim that I've disputed the requirement of SERE. That's not a coincidence. Therefore, this claim can be disregarded as false if you can't prove it with evidence.

.
"You said first it was not required"

.
I did? Where? When? How? This claim can be disregarded as false if you can't prove it with evidence.

.
"now you are back saying it is not"

.
I am? Where? When? How? This claim can be disregarded as false if you can't prove it with evidence.

.
"as soon as you make up your mind let me know."

.
Make up my mind? Regarding what? I've never disputed that SERE is required. I have always been clear that trainees are volunteers (you admit this is correct by stating: "They choose to serve (voluntary)"), and that interrogation/detention training of those volunteers (an aspect of SERE) is knowingly undertaken (true), and voluntary in exposure (true) through the use of safe-words to stop the application of a technique at any time to reduce the risk of physical and psychological harm to trainees, in addition to available medical and psychological intervention and screening.

.
You know, for someone so concerned with whether SERE is voluntary or not, you sure seem apathetically resigned regarding my proven key assertions that waterboarding is illegal torture incomparable to SERE training. Is your manufactured outrage due to a misinterpretation on your part a way to soothe the frustration of that resignation?

You are talking in circles.

It is required, I provided you FACTS from the military to show you and you still dispute it.

You said first it was not required and then you said it is required now you are back saying it is not...as soon as you make up your mind let me know.

I see you've chosen to be disingenuous in quoting me by omitting my following qualifying sentence. Let me help you out by posting my assertion in it's entirety:
"First, SERE interrogation/detention training is voluntary. Trainees have 'code words to stop the application of a technique at any time."

.
Here we see the truthful claim that interrogation/detention training, which is an aspect of SERE, is voluntary in exposure due to the application of code words that can stop any scenario.

.
"first you unequivocally state it is voluntary"

.
Incorrect. As I've stated, I've never refuted SERE being required. I have always been clear that trainees are volunteers (you admit this is correct by stating: "They choose to serve (voluntary)"), and that interrogation/detention training of those volunteers (an aspect of SERE) is knowingly undertaken (true), and voluntary in exposure (true) through the use of safe-words to stop the application of a technique at any time to reduce the risk of physical and psychological harm to trainees, in addition to available medical and psychological intervention and screening.
You lack proof of your claim. That's not a coincidence. Therefore, this claim can be disregarded as false if you can't prove it with evidence.

.
"now you declare is not voluntary; as I have told you the whole time."

.
I've never made any statement claiming that SERE is voluntary to begin with. I have always been clear that trainees are volunteers (you admit this is correct by stating: "They choose to serve (voluntary)"), and that interrogation/detention training of those volunteers (an aspect of SERE) is knowingly undertaken (true), and voluntary in exposure (true) through the use of safe-words to stop the application of a technique at any time to reduce the risk of physical and psychological harm to trainees, in addition to available medical and psychological intervention and screening.

.
"You have thus proven"

.
I have? Where? When? How? This claim can be disregarded as false if you can't prove it with evidence.

.
"your initial opinion was in fact wrong this whole time, as I said."

.
What "initial opinion"? You'll need to quote the sentence containing it and point specifically to why it is "in fact wrong." Facts can be proven. Can you prove this one?

.
You know, for someone so concerned with whether SERE is voluntary or not, you sure seem apathetically resigned regarding my proven key assertions that waterboarding is illegal torture incomparable to SERE training. Is your manufactured outrage due to a misinterpretation on your part a way to soothe the frustration of that resignation?

Water boarding is illegal, has been prosecuted for being so for over a hundred years in this country. As I said before, assault is also illegal, but when you step in a boxing ring you are volunteering to be assaulted, much the same as a soldier undergoing SERE training volunteers to be SAFELY water boarded.

O.K. little buddy, oops!

pharm, you will never admit being wrong will you, no matter what. I didn't call you a little dog nipping did I? I said you were LIKE one. Of course you won't see the difference. As for going off on others, you are right. Guess what, that won't change either. I don't mind going down that road. What I find funny is, many of those that complain about going that way, have done it themselves. You included. Next time you want to point something out, make sure your "house" is in order first.

Posted by you [Oct 10, 2009 at 6:45 p.m] “SERE interrogation/detention training is voluntary.”
-
Make up your mind, first you unequivocally state it is voluntary now you declare is not voluntary; as I have told you the whole time.

You have thus proven your initial opinion was in fact wrong this whole time, as I said.

"This is getting laughable."

.
Your self-assessment is correct.

.
"They choose to serve (voluntary)"

.
Correct. Thus, they are VOLUNTEERS. There’s a reason why 'voluntary' and 'volunteers' are so similar.

.
"the training is REQUIRED"

.
Correct, training is required by the voluntarily enlisted, and that has NEVER been refuted. I have made clear that interrogation/detention training is knowingly undertaken, and voluntary in exposure through the use of safe-words to stop the application of a technique at any time to reduce the risk of physical and psychological harm to trainees, in addition to available medical and psychological intervention and screening. Again, I’d like to know where detainee volunteer stations are located in the Middle East; what advance information was given to detainees regarding waterboarding; and, whether detainees were provided safe-words beforehand to prompt psychologist intervention if detainees became overwhelmed. I’m kind of embarrassed for you that you’ve reduced yourself to this one tangential issue which you’ve misinterpreted. But, whatever you need to do to avoid dealing with the reality that waterboarding is illegal torture...

.
"Your rhetorical question on volunteer locations; assuming you are talking of terrorists are better suited to a detention victim, go ahead and ask them what outpost signed them up."

.
I'm pretty sure this isn't even a literate sentence. Please try again, with proper use of punctuation this time.

.
"If as you say this is all irrelevant and requires no further discussion I can safely assume you are done posting comments"

.
Nah. I stated that no further discussion is required to prove that waterboarding detainees is illegal and torture due to treaties and the application of Article VI of the Constitution. Required, however, are responses to those who would rationalize it by making false comparisons to SERE training, or other attempts to use opinions to oppose facts.

.
"we can end this both knowing neither will change their opinion."

.
That's the problem right there. There's nothing "opinion" related about the fact that waterboarding is illegal torture. You more than prove this through your total lack of engagement in those facts, let alone attempts to refute them.

I could list a citing from all branches but I pulled a regulation from the Navy, as it does cover both the Navy and Marines; the Air Force and Army have similar REQUIREMENTS.

MARINE CORPS ORDER 3460.2 From: Commandant of the Marine Corps Subj: POLICY FOR PERSONNEL RECOVERY AND REPATRIATION

Situation. This Order is published to meet…requirements

Commanders will ensure that their [members] are trained per guidance contained in references…regarding the duties, responsibilities, and conduct of personnel who have become prisoners of war (POWs), government detainees, or hostages. This will include Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training.

This is getting laughable. They choose to serve (voluntary), the training is REQUIRED; no matter how many times you try to inject with comments of duress or safe words, the training still is a requirement.

Your rhetorical question on volunteer locations; assuming you are talking of terrorists are better suited to a detention victim, go ahead and ask them what outpost signed them up.

If as you say this is all irrelevant and requires no further discussion I can safely assume you are done posting comments and we can end this both knowing neither will change their opinion.

"You can’t win a debate with accusations of disingenuousness and then attempt to refute them while being disingenuous."

.
Sure you can. I’ve already proven my key assertions. Even if I'd been disingenuous (which I've not been), it doesn't negate that.

.
"specific disingenuous wording is saying the training is voluntary, when in fact the training is a requirement."

.
Which specific wording? Odd you chose not to specify...In any case, not only is enlistment voluntary, but the relevant training is knowingly undertaken and voluntary in exposure through the application of safe-words to provide interventions.
Remind me: where are there detainee volunteer stations located in the Middle East; what advance information were detainees given regarding waterboarding; and, were detainees provided safe-words beforehand to prompt psychologist intervention if detainees became overwhelmed?

.
This is all irrelevant anyway as waterboarding is prohibited by treaties that the U.S. is a signatory member of, and due to Article VI of the U.S. There's no further discussion required.

.
"casting spurious accusations of hypothetical and fallacious appeal to emotion is laughable"

.
Neither spurious nor laughable in fact, only in your unsubstantiated opinion. I see that you've mastered appeals to ridicule as well as emotion.

.
"There have been countless studies of war fighters returning home and having emotional trauma"

.
True, and unfortunate, but a known factor that should be taken into account by the individual before voluntarily enlisting. Also, tangential to what you actually stated.

.
"you declare this to be 'hypothetical and fallacious appeal to emotion'"

.
You are being disingenuous yet again. It is in fact pure hypothetical, and fallacious appeal to emotion, to cite "unknown emotional panic/remorse from all bystanders." Again I ask, "what bystanders?" Oh yea; those you hypothesized about in that hypothetical shooting scenario.

.
Again, this is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with waterboard torture.

.
"Your comments on the possible results of water boarding"

.
Which comments? My provision of requested evidence, sourced from a medical expert trained in the care of those who have experienced waterboarding and similar abuse, of the fact that waterboarding (which in fact was carried out on U.S.-held detainees) constitutes “severe” suffering? Or my provision of Lt. Nielsen’s actual recounting of his actual results of being actually waterboarded? In addition, if you’ll care to look again, you'll notice both guaranteed and possible effects were named.

.
"you think any emotional panic/remorse of a bystander witnessing someone killed with a 50cal round is a 'hypothetical and fallacious appeal to emotion.'"

.
To posit a hypothetical situation involving hypothetical bystanders watching a hypothetical shooting is in fact pure hypothetical, and fallacious appeal to emotion.

You might be right, you also might be a doo doo head yourself.

I think both of you are doo doo heads.

We are not going anyplace with this, but you called me "a little dog nipping at my heels" before the "tough noogies" comment. Look back through your posts, I am not the only one you have gone off on.

You can’t win a debate with accusations of disingenuousness and then attempt to refute them while being disingenuous.

Training is a requirement (skill set) needed for specific duty positions. Some training, as you say is voluntary, like the skills needed for a position as a navy seal (almost all positions have skill requirements); if you don’t complete the training you are removed as a seal. Evasion and resistance training does have required completion “events” and some parts of the training are for exposure purposes. Your specific disingenuous wording is saying the training is voluntary, when in fact the training is a requirement for the specific position or duty skill the volunteered member will be holding or responsible for.

Your retort of my comments by casting spurious accusations of hypothetical and fallacious appeal to emotion is laughable in the least and when looked at in-depth a fallacy. There have been countless studies of war fighters returning home and having emotional trauma for years over watching a friend/solder/sailor/marine standing next to them torn apart from munitions or a sniper…and you declare this to be “hypothetical and fallacious appeal to emotion”.

Your comments on the possible results of water boarding are disingenuous considering you think any emotional panic/remorse of a bystander witnessing someone killed with a 50cal round is a “hypothetical and fallacious appeal to emotion”.

pharm you are wrong again. You look back and you will see that you said, "tough noogies little fella", before I called you anything. Weren't you being antagonistic with that comment?

andre, if you look back you will see you started the name calling, "twit", and "little lady", that is when I called you "annie', and even "little buddy."

pharm, you tell me why you initiated the name calling, you started it. I think you were bitter and antagonistic because I didn't agree with your point of view.

"If you volunteer for duty and receive REQUIRED training it meets the level of being ok…”

.
Here, let me help you with your astounding disingenuousness:

First, SERE interrogation/detention training is voluntary. Trainees have "code words to stop the application of a technique at any time." Furthermore, the waterboarding experienced in SERE is NOT comparable to the waterboarding that was carried out on detainees. Besides the differences of water application, "the SERE schools employ strict controls to reduce the risk of physical and psychological harm to students during training. Those controls include medical and psychological screening for students, interventions by trained psychologists during training...and are not present in real world interrogations." - Armed Services Committee report, http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/n...

.
Second, DETAINEES are unwillingly captured during a military conflict, and so are covered under treaties that we're signatories of. Some detainees have been repeatedly subjected to severe suffering while in detention. Such treatment is not permitted by those treaties.

Conversely, SERE TRAINEES are knowingly and voluntarily exposed to simulated situations for the purpose of preparation. The SERE 'interrogator' wants to teach the trainees to resist, as opposed to making them talk. All while psychologists monitor trainees "for indications that they are not coping well with training tasks, provide corrective interventions with them long before they become overwhelmed, and if need be, re-motivate students who have become overwhelmed", according to Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg, a chief of psychology services at the Air Force SERE school. As enlisted soldiers are participating in training provided by the military, I know of no law that prohibits preparing a soldier to resist capture and interrogation.

.
"It is acceptable to have a sniper shoot them with a 50cal from 2000ft, inflicting massive trauma (and then death) and unknown emotional panic/remorse from all bystanders."
.
Correct. Though the second half is pure hypothetical, and fallacious appeal to emotion. Who said anything about bystanders?

.
"It is acceptable to kill them..."
.
Correct. You seem to be catching on to why we have soldiers stationed in the Middle East...guess I can skip to the last question.

.
"But if we catch one, pouring water in their face while asking questions is beyond the level of allowable behavior?"
.
Except that "pouring water in their face" isn't what happened. It makes it seem less silly to consider that, in reality, waterboarded detainees were reclined, restrained, and suffocated by pouring water between 100-200 times over their mouth and nose in order to cause severe suffering that can lead to a heart attack, lung damage, panic attacks, depression or PTSD. But keep telling yourself that we sat down Mr. Jihad at a table and poured water over the top of his turban.

Please post those comments, also the reason I called you "annie." You lost it then and are continuing.RAF, hypocrisy is when you tell people that because they believe something that doesn`t make it so, and then say water boarding is not torture because YOU don`t think it is.

" that only reinforces my statement that you are bitter and antagonistic towards those that do not share your beliefs."
+
Wrong again pharm. Shall I go back and post the comments from our first encounter when you started referring to me as "annie" instead of andre_linoge? Weren't you trying to "belittle" me by doing so? Were you being bitter and antagonistic because I didn't share your beliefs?

Your "conclusion" of what you think is irrelative. You callously provided erroneous comments attributed to statement(s) you declared I made; libelous…I’ll wait while you find them to prove me wrong.

It is obvious you are unable to constrain your attention to the conversations at hand; in this case direct questions asked of your previous comments. I guess I must hold your hand and re-post your comments (from this very same thread) about these comments you have as yet failed to base in fact, or in your case I am sure fiction.

1. You posted [Oct 1, 2009 at 11:37 p.m.] "I keep forgeting you're in favor of torturing other human beings no matter the reason.". Question: please provide where this was stated by me?

2. You posted [Oct 5, 2009 at 9:21 a.m.] “So far, you have said nothing…other than offer up the feeble excuse "because they did it to us first". Question: please provide where this was stated by me?

Gee RAF, which statement did you make that you claim I falsely attributed to you. Was it the one where you stated, “I find it hard to swallow we need to somehow be morally right after our innocents were attacked. We were morally right before our country was attacked, how well did work for the people that died?” to justify our use of torture.

Or how about this one where you lay out the case that because the torture was not committed on US soil, “To the posters that say torture is illegal, please post the US code or law refereed to that provides jurisdiction over said offense when not performed on/in the US soil?”, as though its ok for the US to commit human rights abuses as long as it takes place in another country.

And finally there is this opinion you offered, “But to leave out a possibility of gathering information in a time of need in a manner that does no physical harm, IMHO, is wrong” where you add the caveat, in my honest opinion. Well RAF, since you don’t decide interrogation policy for our Armed Forces or the CIA or the UN, your opinion doesn’t matter. What does matter is the fact abuses did occur and its up to others to decide if those in the Bush Administration acted outside the law.

Reading your statements, RAF, leads me to believe that you will find almost any excuse to justify the use of torture, either by denying that the act IS torture, or if it is torture then it took place outside the US and hey, there is no law against that, or my favorite – well they did it to us first – line of reasoning. Perhaps you should take your own advice; at least the “get a clue” part.

If you volunteer for duty (service) and receive REQUIRED training it meets the level of being ok…and they can be water boarded. If a person volunteers to be a “terrorist” they do not meet the criteria necessary to be water boarded? This level of hypocrisy is astounding.

It is acceptable to have a sniper shoot them with a 50cal from 2000ft, inflicting massive trauma (and then death) and unknown emotional panic/remorse from all bystanders.

It is acceptable to kill them in close order combat during hand-to-hand, house-to-house, or street-to-street using machine guns, rifles, grenades, knifes, and trained hands.

It is acceptable to drop/launch guided, unguided, anti-personnel, anti-armor, air explosive, ground penetrating munitions to kill them from manned and unmanned platforms.

It is acceptable to fire high powered rounds from air vehicles beyond visual range to kill them.

But if we catch one, pouring water in their face while asking questions is beyond the level of allowable behavior?

"Show us where water boarding inflicts severe pain or suffering."

.
K.

.
"Waterboarding...clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected...There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs... Long-term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD" - Dr. Allen Keller, Director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Survivors of Torture program

.
"Our own troops have under gone water boarding. Were they 'tortured'?"

.
You're so nonchalant about this, as if they do it for fun. There is a VERY good reason that the military does it: to teach troops how to RESIST and SURVIVE being captured and/or tortured - a form of which being waterboarding. It's NOT torture as defined by law when SERE trainees are waterboarded, for two reasons:

.
a. They're not POWs who are intentionally being made to suffer in order to obtain information or a confession, but are VOLUNTEERS who know they are being taught survival skills.

And

b. They're not submitted to the same treatment by the administrator of the waterboarding as detainees are, as the end goals are not the same. Unless you can show that it's standard procedure in SERE training for troops to be strapped down and have water poured over their face 183 times with the intention of breaking trainees and causing them to offer confessions? Because there's proof that SERE training is NOT the same as the procedure applied to Gitmo detainees: "the waterboard technique employed at (redacted) was different from the technique as described in the DoJ opinion and used in the SERE training. The difference was in the manner in which the detainee’s breathing was obstructed...One of the psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that the Agency’s use of the technique differed from that used in SERE training and explained that the Agency’s technique is different because it is 'for real' and is more poignant and convincing." - CIA Inspector General special report on interrogation techniques, May 7, 2004.

.
Of course, when our own troops are waterboarded as POWs, it IS torture, and the U.S. HAS prosecuted war criminals who have waterboarded U.S. POWs. Post-WWII, during the Japanese War Crimes Trials, Japanese soldiers were convicted of numerous war crimes, with waterboarding being specified among them. When testifying against his captors, POW Lt. Nielsen described his experience with water torture: "I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face...They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again... I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."

The law says waterboarding is torture, as is assaulting someone. But, if you are a soldier volunteering to do it, it becomes the same as a boxer stepping in the ring.

Joe, yes I agree, some that have gone through this training and in the military in general do have that opinion. My comment is to those that say with out a doubt this (water boarding) is torture are silent on the topic of this act used during training our own troops...shows complete hypocrisy---if you are going to stand and say don't do it, it should be for all not some.

Red, still waiting for you to defend the false statement you said I made...get a clue and stay focused.

"I`ll belittle anything I feel like belittling," that only reinforces my statement that you are bitter and antagonistic towards those that do not share your beliefs.

"torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession"

Ok andre, if waterboarding only inflicts moderate pain then why would using that method induce someone to give up information? Waterboarding is NOT EFFECTIVE unless the subject believes their death is imminent unless the waterboarding stops. If a subject believes the waterboarding will stop BEFORE they feel intense suffering, then its not effective. Waterboarding used properly is SUPPOSED to CAUSE severe pain and suffering, physically and psychologically, otherwise its use is pointless. And so is your contention that the US need not follow any form of international law.
Your statement, "Show us where water boarding inflicts severe pain or suffering.", clearly shows you have no clue as to the purpose or method of waterboarding, although, I'm sure in your next post you will claim to be an expert.

> Our own troops have under gone water boarding. Were they "tortured"?

I've been through SERE but I am not going to provide my own opinion; I am certain you are all smart enough to deduce what it is.

Here is the opinion of one SERE master instructor:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10...

"While I can't show you that any "organization" has the ability to supersede U.S. law, I can show you in the Constitution where waterboarding is torture and illegal:"
+

+
Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
+
Notice the words, SEVERE pain or suffering.
+
Show us where water boarding inflicts severe pain or suffering. Our own troops have under gone water boarding. Were they "tortured"?

Sorry, freaks, but as fun as torture is for you, we're not in the business of helping people get their jollies. This is a nation under the rule of law, and since the last President invoked that phrase so often, maybe he would like a taste of what it actually means.

"Red, I love your first sentence; “Here are some facts for you RAF. If…” Please explain how a sentence stating with the word “if” and ending in a question mark is a fact."

It wasn't RAF, you have to read beyond the first sentence to where I have the word "fact" written.

"What I believe to be torture is the issue Red."

Really RAF? Because I don't think that guy from Canada who, during a stopover in NY, was detained by US officials and ultimately ended up in somewhere Syria where he claims he was tortured, then after several months was released because the US realized they had made a mistake, would agree with you.
The lawsuits in the article also involve illegal detention issues and the abuse of Presidential power.
My argument has been that IF the judges find evidence crimes were committed the offenders should be held accountable. What it boils down to RAF is that it really doesn't matter what you or andre or I think, it all hinges on what the legal system determines based on the evidence. Save your self-important annotations for another time.

andre_linoge -

.
"show me in the constitution where it says the laws of this nation can be superseded by the 'laws' of any outside 'governing' organization."

.
While I can't show you that any "organization" has the ability to supersede U.S. law, I can show you in the Constitution where waterboarding is torture and illegal:

.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." - Article VI

.
The Geneva Conventions involve a series of treaties which the U.S. is a signatory member of. As such, those treaties are part of the supreme law of the land. And, since those treaties ban the use of waterboarding, the act is illegal under U.S. law.

"I don`t have a problem with someone proving me wrong with facts, but don`t belittle my right to give my views."
+
I'll belittle anything I feel like belittling. As for the UN. It's a joke. Again I'll say this, show me in the constitution where it says the laws of this nation can be superseded by the "laws" of any outside "governing" organization.

"If you need a gun to enforce your beliefs on others then your beliefs aren't worth diddly squat!"
+
Take this line of reasoning with you to meet with the terrorist and convince them. Then I'll listen to you.

Red, are you going to address your previous erroneous and completely false statements or are you STILL going to pretend it didn't happen?

RAF, if you can do it, more power to you.

And where has "facing down the business end..." of any gun led us, andre. You cannot force another human being to tell the truth; threats of violence only foster cynicism and hate. If waterboarding actually worked, why did they perform it over 180 times on one captive? Many interrogation experts say captives who fall into a false sense of security tend to give more valuable information. The purpose of waterboarding is to make the captive feel as though his life is in danger. If it does not do that, then what is the purpose of waterboarding? If someone believes they may die as a result of an action isn't that the definition of torture? What part of that line of reasoning don't you get. If you need a gun to enforce your beliefs on others then your beliefs aren't worth diddly squat! Besides I would never put anything you gave me in my pipe.

"I don`t have a problem with someone proving me wrong with facts"
-
Sure...

I don`t know the inside workings of the military, never said I did. I do know that we joined the UN, and are expected to follow the rules. I do know that waterboarding has been prosecuted as torture by the US for over a hundred years, and that beating, nudity, exposure to cold, threatening with dogs is prohibited. You have mentioned before about not listening to people who have not served,"not facing the AK-47", that is your right, but it does not mean those people are wrong in what they say. I don`t have a problem with someone proving me wrong with facts, but don`t belittle my right to give my views.

No problem...! I think it'd be fun to sit down and have a few beers with a number of the posters here. We would be guaranteed an animated discussion!

"There you go again, saying if a person didn`t serve they can`t comment on military matters"
+
No, I didn't say that in the comment you are referring to. Read it again pharm. You can comment all you want on the military, but you have to admit, you don't know the inside workings of the military. Just like I can talk about brain surgery, but I'd have to admit I wouldn't know the intricacies that someone that performs it would.
+
Sorry Mr. Flint, I guess I assumed that was the intent of your comment.

Thanks, RAF.

Andre, although Joe and I at times disagree, I have never taken any of his comments in that vein.

> I know you and pharm would like to [hand the US over to the UN]

Please.

Please go back through any comment I have ever posted here and show me when I have EVER advocated such a thing.

If you don`t want to follow the rules of an organization like the UN, don`t join it. There you go again, saying if a person didn`t serve they can`t comment on military matters, torture, etc. If we follow that scenario, you can`t comment on being President, senator, astronaut, global warming issues, abortion, etc. Thank you for your service, I`m sure you did a great job, but it has left you bitter and and antagonistic towards others that don`t happen to agree with you.

Hey panama, when you have faced the working end of an AK-47, I'll listen to you, until then I don't care what a liberal do nothing like yourself has to say. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Joe, you find it funny I guess, but I don't want this country handing over its sovereignty to the UN. I know you and pharm would like to, but I notice nobody showed me where in the constitution we allow laws outside the US to supersede ours.

Yup... :)

See my previous comment: "Obviously, I can't provide better or more definitive links for some things........................"

Joe, the list for North Korea is not complete. I spent all of '95 there and know of incidents involving north to south infiltration (well below the DMZ) that are not included; I would then have to conclude other facts are also missing from this list.

Red, are you going to address your previous erroneous and completely false statements you made or are you going to pretend it didn't happen?

No problem... it's a sketchy, sketchy world out there and as you likely know (better than most I would guess, based on your handle), we are very often engaged all over the world... there's always a little shooting going on somewhere... Obviously, I can't provide better or more definitive links for some things........................

Joe, the time frame was 1991-2003. My fault for assuming the conflicts of Kosovo and incidents following 9/11 were a no brainer.

The China incident, in all accounts I have read, was based on a mid-air involving no munitions and the loss of a China fighter to the collision and a subsequent forced landing from extensive damage from the mid-air.

I don’t have the time right now to go through your link from Korea, but I will read through it.

> Joe, I would be interested to read the accounts for the countries you say fired on US war planes during that time.

srsly?

China: The most important incident was the downing of one Chinese J-8 and the forced landing of a Navy EP-3 Orion in April 2001. "The source said the EP-3's attempt to fly away was aborted after the second jet fighter opened fire with its machine gun as a warning."

North Korea: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL30004.pdf

Yugoslavia: Operation Allied Force 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_b...

Sudan: Here's a hint: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?art...

Iraq: Over the years, coalition aircraft responded to Iraqi attacks by dropping munitions on a wide variety of targets that threatened the no-fly zone patrols. http://www.eucom.mil/English/FullStory.a...

Pakistan & Afghanistan: Often while supplying the Northern Alliance, even before 9/11. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...

> Illegal by what court decision?

Hilarious.

You cannot have it both ways: what extraterritorial court would you even have hear the "case"? If there is such a court, then ipso facto you have allowed a non-U.S. entity to have jurisdiction over U.S. policy and therefore open the door to allowing the U.N. to have some leverage over U.S. policy.

By point of fact, even the last administration shied away from the legality of the no-fly zones -- this from an administration that often sought legal opinions (NOT court decisions, just memos) when policy collided with existing case law.

Why 'No-Fly' Zone Clashes Won't Trigger an Iraq War
November 2002
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0...

RAF, andre, vatoloco and the rest of the neo-cons have failed to offer any logical or reasonable premise as to why those who authorized the abuse suffered by individuals held in captivity by the US should NOT be held accountable for actions every other civilized country views as abuse or torture. The best they can do is marginalize the mistreatment of prisoners by claiming no one died as a result of the abuse while remaining completely ignorant of the psychological effects or offer opinions that our actions should be justified because our enemy acted in vulgar and cruel ways. Mostly, though, they ignore the truth and desperately cling to the false belief that by our use of extreme cruelty we were able to extract information which would otherwise be unknown even though interrogation experts have refuted that notion. The rigid views of the fringe right prevent an open exchange of ideas. They don’t subscribe to reason, logic or intellect in their efforts to form a judgment. They can justify any type of behavior as long they view it as a means to satisfy their own self-centered goals. Those who espouse altruistic ideals are considered weak and ineffectual. Ultimately it appears that our legal system will determine whether crimes were committed or not. Either way, it will not erase the stain that allegations of torture and prisoner abuse have left on our country.

I do have a position on the UN. As an organization, the UN is a collective of countries that in general dispise or resent the US for a variety of reasons. Some are political, some are wealth based, some are religious based. The reality is that the UN compromises US security and stands in the way of real progress. Supports policy that would negatively affect US wealth and security. The UN should be moved and we should drop out.

Yes fiction based movie reviewers are what we need to declare the difference in torture than and torture now.

Remember when we were proud that we had the moral courage to uphold the Geneva convention?

Just watch "Judgement at Nuremberg", and remember a time when the US thought that torture of prisoners was an atrocity deserving capital punishment.

This sovereign nation is a member of the UN. We expect other nations(Iraq,Iran) to comply with UN resolutions. We should too, or quit . You can`t just follow the rulings you like and ignore the rest, and still be a nation following the rule of law. When did waterboarding become legal under our laws, what court case, or legislation did it? Maybe it was the same one that made the no fly zones legal.

Joe, I would be interested to read the accounts for the countries you say fired on US war planes during that time.

"The no fly zones, "illegal" as pharm points out"
+
Illegal by what court decision? The US is a sovereign nation and I have never seen anywhere in the US constitution where it says this countries laws can be superseded by the laws of any other nation or world body. If you are referring to that joke organization called the UN, show us where they can supersede our laws.

toasty2k
Why not just drop a couple nukes on the area? That would keep your family safe.
.
Me, I would rather die than live in a country with no morals. My son and daughter will be raised with the same convictions.
.
If that makes me a liberal, sign me up.

> which sovereign country was the only one to fire on US war planes from 1991 until 2003?

For starters:
China
North Korea
Yugoslavia
Sudan
Iraq
Pakistan
Afghanistan

Incidentally, Russia has repeatedly tested both the North American ADIZ as well as US possessions in the Pacific, particularly since 2005.

Notably, the threat du jour, Iran, has not.

RAF - which sovereign country PROMISED support to freedom fighters only to renege and watch them be slaughtered by Saddam?

The no fly zones, "illegal" as pharm points out, were too little, too late for so many brave people, both Kurd and Arab, who stood up to Saddam after the first Gulf War.

The actions of our government since the mid-70s in or towards Iraq have been hypocritical to say the least.

...

Still no cogent reply to the links I provided on the ineffectuality of torture.

No surprise.

In 1993, the UN Legal Department said there were no existing Security Council resolutions authorizing the U.S., U. K., or France to enforce no fly zones.

If Iraqi warplanes flew over the U/S. would we fire on them? Of course! Under International law, we had no right to impose the no fly zones.

Joe, which sovereign country was the only one to fire on US war planes from 1991 until 2003? And you say they never attacked the US?

All those that are opposed to what they deem as "torure", take your case to the enemy and convince them if you are so strong in your conviction. See if you can get them to comply with your way of thinking. Let us know how that works out for you.

> They would love to kill you, your family and cut your child's head off in front of you while they smile.

Are you afraid of the dark too?

> But hey, the left would rather see their loved ones die

You are sick and need help.

> These cowards attacked us first.

Learn some history.

Iraq is not Saudi Arabia... you know, of the nineteen terrorists who attacked on 9/11, fifteen were Saudi. Please tell me when Iraq ever attacked the United States. Iraq attacked Kuwait a generation ago for a variety of reasons and an American response was not even in the cards until _three_ days after the fait accompli. In fact, America never said "no!" to said invasion and after eight years of providing covert support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, why wouldn't Iraq assume we would remain friendly?
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glasp...

We supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets -- that was even popular culture 2-3 decades ago (Spies Like Us, Rambo III) -- which is one of many reasons that country remained quieter than Iraq.

You might also want to read up on Operation Ajax and the 1973 Arab-Israeli war for starters. The former was the direct cause of the 1979 Revolution; the latter has extremely interesting implications on nuclear weapons policy in the Middle East as well as having radically altered Egypt and Jordan's diplomatic stances.

I note that no one has cogently (or otherwise) responded to my previous comment about the ineffectuality of torture. I wonder if anyone even followed the links. I surely doubt any minds were changed.

History is not black and white; our foreign policy decisions since the 1930s have, particularly in Central Asia, been short-sighted and ill-informed, and based on keeping the oil flowing in the short term. Subordinate to that fact has been the policy of keeping regional powers at odds with each other; ironically, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have strengthened Tehran's bid to become the regional power. If oil is the discriminator, Iran is, hands down.

"These cowards attacked us first" illustrates a breathtaking dissociation of the available facts.

So now McCain and Petraeus are "lefties", I`m sure that will be news to them, along with all the other conservatives in the country who have condemned torture.

The liberals just don't get it. We are dealing with a different kind of belief. those Jihadist nuts don't care about our morals, but in fact pray on them. They would love to kill you, your family and cut your child's head off in front of you while they smile. And I hate to break it to you blind lefties, they hated us long before Bush. But hey, the left would rather see their loved ones die, as it would make them feel better because we didn't torture someone to save them. I have a two and a half year old son, if torture helps protect him, my family, my friends and my countrymen, then where do I help? I rather live, than have them try to kill me. Those who are going after these fine Americans are nothing more than traitors. They are no better than the terrorist. So thanks again President Bush for doing all you could do to protect this country!

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

Ezoner,
"In the end -- as long as the government protects me, my family and US natural born citizens, I really don't care. I believe that we need to deal with this without concern for transgression -to protect ourselves and our citizens."
.
Aren't we suppose to be better than that?
.
If we, the USA, is to stand for freedom, justice, human rights, etc... how can we also torture?
.
Just because it might or does protest US citizens doesn't mean it is OK.
.
We could do a lot of things (police state, curfew for everyone, prohibition, etc...) to ensure more American citizens safety but we don't allow that because we also value freedom and human rights.
.
When did we (some of us) lose those values?
.
To those "OK" with torture...what else would you allow the government to do to ensure "safety"?
.
If a non-US citizen not having rights keep us safe and that is your primary argument why stop there. If safety is the goal, why not get rid of the Bill of Rights?
.
Just wondering.
.
This isn't an easy topic but some of you seem so sure of your opinion. I go back and forth on this topic daily. I dont know if there is a correct answer.

"In the end -- as long as the government protects me, my family and US natural born citizens, I really don't care"

Same here Ezoner. Tell this to Zoom who seems more intrested in protecting the people who would cut and blow his family up without blinking an eye.

Don't just lock Ashcroft up. Make sure Runsfield and the two war criminals (Bush and Cheney) get to be in the same cell with him

If there is no possibility to harm or hurt, why do you need psychologists, and physicians standing by while it is being done. You are admitting the possibility of mental and/or physical harm, therefore losing the grounds of no "intent." Again, when did the law change to make waterboarding legal?

"Do those being tortured know those statistics? Would an enemy being tortured feel assured, knowing nobody they know of has died from being waterboarded? If nobody has ever died from American waterboarding, are you saying it isn't torture to the enemy being tortured?"

make sense zoom. You are all over the place.

RAF, obviously those making the decision to permit waterboarding were wrong. "Intent" is not a good enough reason to break the law. If that was a legal defense, there would be anarchy. "Sorry officer, I didn't "intend" to kill that family of four when I was driving drunk".

Red, I love your first sentence; “Here are some facts for you RAF. If…” Please explain how a sentence stating with the word “if” and ending in a question mark is a fact.

What I believe to be torture is the issue Red. Due to the fact you have at least twice stated erroneous statements on what you claim I have said. I will be glad to provide comments on your new “facts” as soon as you provide facts to back your previous claims…that you conveniently ignored, again.

I'm not sure where to stand on this. We have been told that using special techniques, we have gained valuable information. What were the techniques?? Is that waterboarding, or something else.

We have also been told that the terroists are trained and believe that death for their cause is an honor. Much the same as a kamakazee (sorry for spelling).

In the end -- as long as the government protects me, my family and US natural born citizens, I really don't care. I believe that we need to deal with this without concern for transgression -to protect ourselves and our citizens.

Zoom, in your own unintentional way, you have divulged the exact legal reason provided by government people involved in making the decision on water boarding; it is based on intent. If the intent was not to hurt, harm, or kill there is no torture…similar to your declaration of the intent behind the difference between training and torture. Only in this case the intent was known to those approving and not those receiving the water boarding. Thank you for grasping the obvious.

believe

916WI, you question has no basis in logic, and is a red herring. Do you know for sure no one has died from American torture? Do those being tortured know those statistics? Would an enemy being tortured feel assured, knowing nobody they know of has died from being waterboarded? If nobody has ever died from American waterboarding, are you saying it isn't torture to the enemy being tortured? Whether anyone has died from waterboarding at American hands is irrelevant. Waterboarding the enemy is torture. Waterboarding a U.S. soldier during training is not.

Our top U.S. generals have said torture is not effective. I'll beleive them before I'll beleive any of you yahoos.

Here are some facts for you RAF. If Bush's Justice Dept. didn't think waterboarding was viewed as torture then why did the Dept. feel the need to document specific opinion memo's that disputed the Geneva Conventions stance it order to justify its use?
The FACT is, the United States has a historical record of regarding water torture as a war crime, and has prosecuted as war criminals individuals for the use of such practices in the past.
The FACT is, in 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese civilian for "Violation of the Laws and Customs of War," asserting the willful and unlawful mistreatment and torture of prisoners of war which included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."
What YOU believe to be torture, RAF, is irrelevant. What matters is how our legal system will define torture. You obstinately cling to a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; now I understand why you are so familiar with the term "delusional"

When did U.S. and International, law change to make waterboarding legal? How about the dozen or so detainees that are known to have died while undergoing interrogation. I won`t call them terrorists because it is not known what they were, except an Iraqi General, beaten to death with axe handles while zipped into a sleeping bag. Our rationale for that one, "Oops, we did it wrong!"

Zoom,

We are dealing with an enemy that has total and unequivocal disregard for human beings. These cowards attacked us first. I am not bothered in the least to what happens to the scum of the world. If they they cut one U.S. head we should cut 1,000 of theirs. These people will not change so why bother being nice to them. If it saves American lives let the water flow. Are you in line with typical liberal ideas of defending murderers and child molesters?

Zoom....Congratulations--you nailed the spelling that time! Your comment "Our troops are never at risk of really dying during the training" alludes to the idea the terrorists are at the risk of dying. Based on your argument, I thought my question regarding the death statistics of terrorists that had undergone waterboarding is definitely a rational question. What are those statistics? Or is it just easier to call people idiots(note the correct spelling:)) than to support your statements?

America how of the free - land of the brave - place of torture for all.

Note that I said RISK of death. The enemy doesn't know that the torturer will stop before the torture kills them. The enemy doesn't know how many more times they will be tortured. Troops know both of those things during training, however unpleasant the training is. It's the FEAR of death, and unvoluntary nature, that makes it torture. Idiot.

Regarding the terrorists that were waterboarded, how many of them died as a direct result of that method of interrogation?

Zoom......If you're going to go as far as to call someone an idiot, please make an effort to spell it correctly--otherwise it loses it's effect:)

Comparing troop training to actual torture has got to be the dumbest justification of torture ever. Talk about grasping at straws. Our troops are never at risk of really dying during the training. The training is not done by the enemy. You folks that keep using that comparison are idoitts.

Waterboarding has been prosecuted as torture in this country for over a hundred years. Just because a lawyer writes a memo, or you believe it`s not torture, doesn`t make it so.

Red, not only did you fail to support your false claim you come out with another one. You’re accusing me of offering no substance to your false accusation(s)…are you really this lost in your own delusion?

Lets start with facts…I know you don’t like facts, but lets start there anyway. I do not think the action of water boarding, to our own troops, or a terrorist is torture; nor do I think it was a crime, unconstitutional, or against the geneva conventions or treaties.

How you can extrapolate the following from my any of my previous comments is beyond reasonable logic by reasonable people; “I keep forgeting you're in favor of torturing other human beings no matter the reason” and “offer up the feeble excuse "because they did it to us first"?

RAF, you should be a politician. You have plenty to say but offer little of substance.

Here is your post on 10/2 which was in response to my post on 10/1:

"I keep forgeting you're in favor of torturing other human beings no matter the reason."
-
"Red, your delusions are growing in strength or someone has used my login to post something you think you have read---in either case please provide any facts you can to back your claim. I’ll wait…"

So then I posted quotes from you which backed my claim that you favor the use of torture and how do you respond, "Red, thanks for the “proof”…If you would have read all the comments it was not me looking for theses remarks/comments, a second or even third time, it was Pharm..."

Uh gee, RAF, pharm's posts came AFTER our exchange.
So far, you have said nothing to dispute the fact you believe torturing others is justified other than offer up the feeble excuse "because they did it to us first". That's the same excuse my 5 year old uses when I admonish him for reacting to his younger sibling's actions. You simply can't admit torture is wrong and those whom authorized the use of torture should be held accountable, but then it takes a man to admit when they are wrong.

> give them a big hug, and possibly a candy bar

Well, we haven't actually tried that, have we? Nice strawman. Mogadishu might be the closest we have ever come to that; let's all thank W's father for dropping that loogie in Clinton's lap.

> Could you post a link with some evidence that torture is INeffective? Didn't think so.

Sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanoi_Hilto...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinio...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkanFveaC...
etc.

The link you posted is a JOKE. Can you say OPINION??? "Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly." -the exact opposite is true.
=
In Obama's first speech to the UN: "For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." -then listed items like ceasing of torture, as to say, prior to his ascension, it had been official U.S. policy!
What he didn't say was: _"For those who question America's character, I cite to you our record of international philanthropy, benevolence, peacemaking and peacekeeping, liberating nations from brutal dictators, promoting democracy throughout the world, and leading the world in technological innovation and the very advancement of civilization."

Instead, he made it clear that he shares the view of the world's leftist critics that America has acted "unilaterally without regard for the interests of others," "arrogant" and "sometimes dismissive."__
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives...

Prounion, I could literally clog this thread with hundreds more. Could you post a link with some evidence that torture is INeffective? Didn't think so.

"Brian Ross, ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent was on The O'Reilly Factor spilling the beans about his secret investigation of CIA "torture" tactics and their effectiveness. Ross concluded that CIA coercion against terrorist detainees was highly effective and thwarted a DOZEN plots to kill American citizens. Who held out the longest? Khaled Sheikh Mohammed - 2-and-a-half minutes under the "water boarding" technique. Sounds like a pretty tough guy, huh?"
http://redstateconservative.blogspot.com...
=
=
And from THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, the best one yet: "In other words, it worked—at least until politics got in the way."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

"It is now being reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed or KSM as he is sometimes referred to as, was very tight lipped about giving up any information until he was waterboarded. After waterboarding and sleep deprivation KSM started teaching classes on terrorism to our intelligence officials. Was it all a bunch of lies to stop the waterboarding? Unlikely, because we used this information to keep the terrorists at bay ever since 9/11."
http://www.examiner.com/x-4291-Baltimore...

"Waterboarding makes tight-lipped terrorists talk. At least three major al-Qaeda leaders reportedly have been waterboarded, most notably Khalid Sheik Mohammed."
"KSM “didn’t resist,” one CIA veteran said in the August 13 issue of The New Yorker. “He sang right away. He cracked real quick.” Another CIA official told ABC News: “KSM lasted the longest under water-boarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again.”

KSM’s revelations helped authorities identify and incarcerate at least six major terrorists"
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjN...

rockcofarmer, and the difference between the the technique used would be? It's ok to be used for training purposes, but not on suspected terrorists? What exactly is your point? I would give more credence to those opposed to our use of a so called "torture" technique if they took their agenda to the battlefield and tried to convince the enemy to stop their use of torture. Of course they won't. They will just sit at their keyboards where it is safe and try to tell others how to defend a nation.

"So who decides when to start tearing off the fingernails? "
-
The guy who can kill people with a railroad tie....of course.

Nice link union! After I read the line "torture endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." the article lost all credibility......In case you haven't noticed the extremists have been cutting off the heads of American citizens and dragging the mutilated bodies of American soldiers through their streets long before torture became an issue. Like I said, it would be wonderful if we could give them a big hug, and possibly a candy bar to leave us alone. Unfortunately they want to kill us all and have been very clear that they will not stop until that goal is accomplished. I think that we need to return the favor:) Yes, I do have a conscience, and yes it is clear!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art...

Dub - could you post a link with some evidence that torture is effective? Didn't think so.
.
So who decides when to start tearing off the fingernails?
.
We don't refrain from torture because we expect other countries to follow suit. We refrain from torture because we are Americans, we are moral, and we are better than countries that don't have respect for human life.
.
You really want our government to have the ability to torture - expand the powers of government huh?

No evidence to show that torture is effective? Are you kidding? That is absurd. I bet you are one of the cattle that think making them uncomfortable is enough to force a murderer to give info.
Conscience? Yes my conscience says a thousand lives are more important than one. Everyone assumes if we don't torture then our enemies won't either. That is stupid. The people who want us wiped from the face of the earth won't even bat an eye at the torture and murder of all of America.
I don't care if the TERRORIST is a mother of four! If there is substantial human life on the line the pros and cons have to be weighed. Unless their target is an abortion clinic, then let them go...
That ought ta fire em up a little ;)

Sitting idle is not the only alternative to the immoral and unamerican act of torturing our fellow human beings.
.
916 don't you have a conscience? How about when a right wing christian blows up another building? Torture them too if we think they have more info to give?
.
Also there is no evidence to show that torture is effective.

The use of waterboarding of our troops is for training purposes only, not to extract information.

RAF,New york Times, 10/18/2008, "Poor Homeowners, Good Loans." "When the Clinton Administration left office, the two mortgage firms(Fannie/Freddie)were still bit players in the subprime markets. The Clinton Administration explicitly discouraged Fannie/Freddie from buying predatory subprime loans. The Treasury Department, and HUD, called for Congress to legislate to "prohibit the purchase by each of these entities(F/F) of predatory loans." end quote.

Again: NECESSARY EVIL.

Sitting idlely by and letting terrorists massacre hundreds of Americans is also unamerican. It would be wonderful if we could just give the extremists(who have made the eradication of western civilization their primary goal) a big hug and ask them to just please leave us alone. Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way.

Torture is unamerican, we are better than this people. Have some morals.

I don't care if they have to peel off a terrorists fingernails one at a time, if it saves thousands of American lives, it is a necessary evil.

RAF, I don't know and I don't know. I'm simply repeating what I read in regard to the treatment of detainees. I read your post that our troops are subjected to the treatment; however, are they not also subjected to gas chambers and things that we do not subject detainees to, as a method of training and conditioning?

I'm not trying to debate the issue with you, because I am not knowledgable enough of the facts and issues at hand. I am posting in order to become more informed, to ask questions and to attempt to develop a stance.

NHI.org, Alan Fishbein, Sept./Oct. 2002. Going Subprime, "interestingly, subprime market growth in the 1990`s occurred largely without the participation of Fannie/Freddie. They traditionally have purchased a small share of these loans."

Thank you for proving my points.

CRA loans are all high risk, yet only 6% of them are considered subprime. (from HUD). You never answered my question before because I never asked it before last week, no matter how many times you say you did, you cannot show it to me or anyone, because it never happened. Subprimes did not take off until this decade, and in congressional testimony the heads and former heads of Fannie/Freddie testified that they didn`t get into them heavily until then. Did they lie? You have a scoop!

Sassy, if water boarding is torture why is it not illegal when done to our own troops?

If as you say our constitution was disregarded by torture, where is the outrage over the use of water boarding on our own troops?

Pharm, really? If I am not comfortable with you then don’t do it…

I tried to stop a debate with you in another thread, telling you I was done, and then you come on this thread whining that I didn’t answer your questions…make up your mind, please.

You still think “high risk” (above prime) loans are not subprime. You still think the HUD action starting in 1992 requiring Fannie and Freddie to purchase these same loans had nothing to do with the eventual down fall. You unequivocally state Fannie and Freddie were not heavily involved in these loans until 2006 yet a HUD requirement starting in 1995 required +42 percent of their business to be high risk; climbing above 50% before 2001.

The additional questions you then asked were already previously debated with you…yet for some reason you can’t remember them; even after being reminded. I see nothing more to debate about with a person that cannot remember past conversations or continually ignores facts in a partisan fashion. QUOTE FORM YOU “ I will always fail to see how the policies in 1993-2000 had a big effect on a sub-prime meltdown…”

This whole foolery is a red herring.

isn't detaining someone without cause a violation of one's 4th amendment rights? "Less than two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, Ashcroft said the government would preventively detain people suspected of terrorist ties, even if it had no evidence they committed a crime."

and wasn't it established that waterboarding IS cruel and unusual punishment? (8th amendment)

Granted, this was a time of crisis for the U.S., but that doesn't constitute a blatant action to disregard the rights of the detained? Now, I'm not on the side of the terrorists, by ANY stretch of the imagination...but our Constitution was scripted, by it's very design, to protect the individual person from the Government...

RAF, you are the one that wanted to play games instead of answering a direct question. If you don`t want to answer, say so, instead of obfuscating. I am not always right, but you seem to think you are. If you are not comfortable going back and forth with me, don`t do it.

Sassy in a nation of laws I am not sure anyone can defend someone that takes a blatantly unconstitutional route. An action that is blatant would have little if any supporters…least of all any advisers or legal authorities saying it was constitutional before acting on it; assuming you are talking of any actions taken by the last administration.

Thus the dilemma I am sure you are getting to. I don’t claim to be an expert on constitutional law, and I don’t see any blatant disregard of the constitution.

Yes Pharm, everything you think, say, and suspect is right...are we done yet?

RAF, yes, EVERY administration, every person, every department...hindsight is 20/20. While I didn't vote for GW, I still gave him proper respect as the President of the United States. I'm sure President Obama will make (and possibly already has made) mistakes. I don't think the issue is about our being human; I think the issue is about whether or not there is an abuse of power or a conscious choice to disregard the law for the benefit of some (be it political party, a cover-up....or whatever). Yes, mistakes happen by everyone. Are they "mistakes" or are they "calculated risks worth taking"? Is THAT the unknown in this current situation? I personally believe they were calculated risks that were taken...and now the decision is being challenged. I can't defend someone who KNEW, yet BLATANTLY DECIDED to take the unconstitutional route. Can you?

RAF, thank you for answering somebody else`s direct question,

RAF, since you don`t want to answer a direct question I am left to judge your bias by your statements. You believe the Bush Administration to be almost perfect,blameless, and all "liberal" politicians and ideas to be wrong. That is the inference I get from your postings.

Of course, every political administration has done something and in many cases multiple things wrong.

ok, I'll bite: RetiredAirForce, do you think the Bush administration ever did anything wrong? Ignoring the Constitution, authorizing, then torturing detainees, doubling the debt, outing a CIA agent, invading Iraq, ignoring Afghanistan, anything? I'd like to know the answer. I've never debated politically with you, nor do I necessarily want to...but I would like to know the answer to that question.

"It's about time. The best part is that judges appointed by a Republican President are the ones that refused to dismiss the cases."
-
Hmm. The first comment was probably the best I've read. To me, it does not matter who appointed the judges or why - only that the U.S. Constitution is followed and protected, no matter what. I'm wondering what amount of negative press President Lincoln got after the Civil War for suspending Habeas Corpus and totally ignoring the tenth ammendment. I should look into that further. Probably not much, since his presidency ended with a bullet. I wonder how today's liberal media would have handled it. I saw at one time a fictional story "as written by today's liberal media" reporting on the battle of Antietam right after it (10K killed in one day alone). I think it was right on the mark.
-
This also makes me want to do a little more political research regarding all the little wars we had in the "Banana Republics" in the 20's and 30's in relation to presidential power.

Correct, you never asked that "exact question" as worded before; all at one time.

Yet, we have discussed these very issues; Bush, the war, torture, and more many times...yet after these conversations (and many others) you still don't know my stance on the subjects you are asking about? Debating a person, in repetitive dialog is not something I care to do. If you are unable to retain previous thoughts and words, I can't help you.

RAF, "spoon feed" me all you want, but I didn`t ask that question before, and you never answered it.

Pharm I gave you an “~” about date to start to find your and mine previous conversations---to each other--- on these exact topics of Bush, the war, torture, and more. It looks like you must be spoon-feed to satisfy your needs as you have repeatedly failed to find your own comments in your own history log; an aside, is this the result of a liberal society succumbing to needs without providing incentive to fend for themselves…hmmm. Anyway try looking at yours and my conversations here http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/may/15/... .Mind you; my views have not changed in these last few months.

Red, thanks for the “proof”…If you would have read all the comments it was not me looking for theses remarks/comments, a second or even third time, it was Pharm; but thanks for doing some digging for him it does look like he needed it. To be honest I had thought with a little hint of the start date he could find these on his own…If you give a person a fish, you feed them for a day. If you teach them how to fish, you feed them for a lifetime.

"andre: Good morning to you too, Mr. I-Am-The-Only-One-Who-Knows-Anything."
+
And good morning to you miss "I know something about everything".
+
Do you think obama is going to come out and say push the issue? Really? He sure hasn't said no has he? You can bet he would love to get the media pressure(what little there is) off his inability to do much of anything except run up the deficit he waled against during his campaign.
His poll numbers are in the tank, he has no idea what to do about Afghanistan, no idea what to do with Iran, and now he couldn't even get the Olympics to come to Chicago. I guess even the world is starting to falter on the "hope and change" idea.

"Andre - you do realize that there is a flaw in your arguement that a few Democrats will also be in truoble for standing by while evil men did evil things right?"
+
"Lets the Dems and Repubs that were involved pay the price."
+
In your own comment you have contradicted yourself. First you say my argument is flawed, and then you say let both dems and Repubs pay the price. Who is confused?
+
Please give me your definition of torture. Does making someone feel uncomfortable qualify as torture? You do know that navy seals are subjected to water boarding so they know what it is like. Were they "tortured"?

I have never asked you that question before, RAF. And before you question my memory again, I looked back to the date you cited, and there was no question, or answer there. Do you believe the Bush administration was right to invade Iraq, neglect the war in Afghanistan to do so, ignore the Constitution, double the debt, authorize and torture detainees, out a CIA operative?

Your memory is failing you RAF. You wanted proof, well here just a sampling of your responses exclaiming the virtues of torture which were posted on the article, “We Must Confront The Torturers Who Acted In Our Name” which was written in April of this year.
-
04/14/09
RAF: What is more "torturous" being shot by a sniper, beheaded by a terrorist on camera for your family to see, bombed by an aircraft, blown up by a road side bomb, targeted by unmanned aerial vehicle, killed by person strapped with a bomb killing everyone within ten feet and injuring everyone from 10-50 feet, or being water boarded? If given a choice of all, the line for water boarding would have everyone in it; at the end you still walk away and are not physically hurt.
-
04/14/09
darwin 1 posted: "Is there any empirical evidence to support the use of torture?"
RAF: If there was ANY real repeatable way to get correct information from people it would already be in use. There are many people that no mater what is done will never tell the truth just as there are weaker people who could break in minutes. Do I condone shoving bamboo pieces under finger nails, no. But to leave out a possibility of gathering information in a time of need in a manner that does no physical harm, IMHO, is wrong. To some sleep deprivation is also torture so who gets to draw the line and where is it drawn?
-
04/18/09
pharm posted: “torture is illegal and immoral.”
RAF: Interesting. The torture everyone in this thread has complained of (waterboarding) is used during the training of our countries elite forces. If it is such a terrible, illegal, and immoral act why have you not protested the government; they do it to the troops you say you support? Why is it when it is called training for our troops, its ok in yours and others eyes? Yet when the same act is performed on a person that wants to kill Americans it is called torture?
-
04/23/09
RAF: To the posters that say torture is illegal, please post the US code or law refereed to that provides jurisdiction over said offense when not performed on/in the US soil?
-
04/23/09
"If the Military Code and the Geneva Conventions are not enough law for you, nothing will ever be."
RAF: This is not about what would be enough for me; I am not even pretending to put forth in anyway that I agree with the stance this was illegal--clearly I believe it was just and right.
-
So there you have it RAF, in your own words. Of course you will now attempt to place your own definition of torture out there to justify your words but in the end it won’t change the truth. Lets end with this little tidbit of twisted logic you call justice.
04/26
RAF: I find it hard to swallow we need to somehow be morally right after our innocents were attacked. We were morally right before our country was attacked, how well did work for the people that died?

The negative, hateful, divisive tone of these comments makes me worry for our country. There is truth in the statement "united we stand, divided we fail". It used to be that after the election we put the nasty campaining behind us and supported whoever was elected President (not chairman). The total lack of respect for the process, corruprted by lobbying,and lack of respect for the office and the majority vote that placed him in office, is contrary to everything we say America is about. This exact type of infighting has toppled empires greater than our relatively young country. Whether you are Republican or Democratic you have a responsibility to do what is good for the whole and not for the party. STOP TEARING OUR COUNTRY APART!

Check through your own comments ~May18th. That is the last hint for the memory challenged.

Can`t remember something that didn`t happen. I just asked the question last week, and I`m still waiting.

Again, why you can't remember is not my issue. Look through your own comment history and find the conversations...I am not here to refresh your memory.

When? I have yet to see you do it.

Your other questions have already been answered...

High risk are not all subprimes. What I said about Fannie/Freddie is exactly what was said in Congressional hearings by the heads, and former heads, of Fannie/Freddie, I suppose they were babbling also. You are still not answering my other question.

Look at John Ashcroft's face. I know you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover...but we can make inferences for a reason. He is evil. Look at that face.His eyes are brooding, and he looks like he's wearing down. A guilty conscience will do that to a person.

Pharm, if what you say is true why then in 2002 was 51.6 percent of Fannie Mae's business in high risk loans? 2002 made the 9th year in a row that Fannie exceeded HUD's requirements for providing funding to high risk borrowers.

These are some of the very simple facts you ignore and prove why I decided to stop the debate. Please feel free to babble on.

Subprimes didn`t take off until 2004-06,nobody was heavy into them until the 2000`s, read about the Congressional hearings in 2008 about them. Are you afraid to answer the questions about your bias towards the Bush administration? that question is unrelated to subprimes.

Pharm, your continued ignorance (uneducated, unaware, or uninformed) on the requirements placed on Fannie and Freddie from HUD after 1992 left little room for continued debate. As to your other remarks, we have debated these issues at length before, why you can’t remember is a problem you might need other help for.

RAF, andre, do either of you think the Bush administration ever did anything wrong? Ignoring the Constitution, authorizing, then torturing detainees, doubling the debt, outing a CIA agent, invading Iraq, ignoring Afghanistan, anything? RAF, you ran from this question before, when I asked if you were biased, saying I made a false statement regarding Fannie/Freddie and subprimes, for which I provided verification, but you ignored the question.

Andre - you do realize that there is a flaw in your arguement that a few Democrats will also be in truoble for standing by while evil men did evil things right?
.
You do know that torture is unamerican right? And from a basic decent moral perspective wrong? So now the time to pay for their crimes has come, tough cookies. Lets the Dems and Repubs that were involved pay the price.

"I don't think it is part of his agenda." - actions speak louder than words & Obama is in a power position to stop this if he wanted to weather it be direct or indirect authority by means of political pressure for the good of the country.

andre: Good morning to you too, Mr. I-Am-The-Only-One-Who-Knows-Anything. Where does it say that President Obama wants this issue to be investigated? The article states: "In two cases, judges appointed by Republican presidents have refused at an early stage to dismiss lawsuits that were filed against Ashcroft and former Justice Department official John Yoo." I will believe you if and when you can show me a non-bias report that shows Obama wants to push this issue. I don't think it is part of his agenda.

Who said judges were putting something in the news cycle? I see you still don't have a clue. The obama administration is making this news now. Remember when obama first said they weren't going to pursue things done by the Bush administration and now they will? Why do you suppose they changed their mind. Actually, I hope they do pursue this. Then we are going to find out that some democrats knew and approved what took place.
+
panama, I suppose you are typing real slow. After reading the majority of your comments and the flawed reasoning you use, you must use the hunt and peck method of typing. Of course it's not about what you have done, you've done nothing.

Despite the arguments of some posting here, I am not sure why judges appointed by Republican presidents would "want to get something else in the news cycle besides all of chairman obamas failures."

"I keep forgeting you're in favor of torturing other human beings no matter the reason."
-
Red, your delusions are growing in strength or someone has used my login to post something you think you have read---in either case please provide any facts you can to back your claim. I’ll wait…

No wonder you're so confused andre, you can't even remember what information is spelled out at the link you referrenced. Open your link and look in the upper right hand corner. I copied and pasted the sentence and here is what is claims:
News Type: Opinion — Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:15 PM ED
The editor at your link states the information is opinion, not fact. It was not me who made that claim.
You also indicate I am defending Democrats by stating: "If there is factual evidence that Democrats were involved with instigating and authorizing actions that violated our constitution then they should be investigated and punished as well." I guess you are able to read words but your comprehension level is suspect.
The evidence (memos) and facts (tortue of individuals) have been proven, andre. It's not "just someones opinion" as you claim but the opinion of a judges appointed by Bush. What remains to be determined is whether the court will "hold those who authorized illegal action responsible, not only those who carry it out."
I'm trying to type real slow so you can follow along. Read the headline of this article again. Its not about what I've personally done to protect our nation, or Afghanistan, or Obamas health care plan or tax cheating democrats.

Sorry RAF, I keep forgeting you're in favor of torturing other human beings no matter the reason. That seems to fit with your version of reality. Evidently your code of conduct is less stringent than most other Americans, most notably the judge in this case. However, you are right in saying that no matter the outcome of this investigation I will not be happy. If those who authorized the abuses get off, I'll be disappointed at the injustice and lack of accountibility. On the other hand, if the judge allows the lawsuits to continue then I'll be saddened in knowing the government officials who authorized the physical and psychological abuse of others are no different than our enemy. As prounion stated "Torture is Un-American" and so are those who torture. But then thats my reality, not yours.

gandalf, and do you think I care if he loses sleep about anything?

Andre, I'm sure 'Chairman' Obama is not losing any sleep over your lack of respect for him.

Ah, panama spews more of his left wing diatribe, crying and whining, and then accuses others of doing the same thing because they are not on his side of the political spectrum. Then you try to defend Pelosi and say it is just someones opinion that she knew what was going on. Well, to use your logic, it's just someones opinion that the Bush people did something wrong. Nothing has been proven to date. You like to refer to the constitution. Refer us to the part that says a person is innocent until proven guilty. As for calling obama chairman, I believe I have the right to freedom of speech, so far, and I can call him what ever I like. Respect is something you earn and so far chairman obama hasn't earned mine. I am sure he has earned yours because his socialist agenda suits your purpose. I haven't listened to Rush in over ten years, Hannity, once in awhile, don't watch Beck or O'Reilly. That accusation by you is nothing more than assumption on your part. Look up the word assumption before you try to infer what people that don't agree with your ideology listen to.

Yes Red, I understand you think you are a constitutional and political employment lawyer; in your mind "knowing" a political appointed lawyers can't be fired and what you think is unconstitutional is, as you say.

Your version of reality (in your mind) and the law happen to be two different things. As I said, I welcome one or more of these cases to go to trial, of course no matter the outcome I suspect you will still be unhappy. But for now please keep telling others about their devotion to ideology we all know yours is a just and righteous opinion and deserves not be questioned of any ideology.

You do realize, andre, that at the heading of what appears to be a "news" article at the link you provided is the following advisory:

News Type: Opinion — Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:15 PM ED

If there is factual evidence that Democrats were involved with instigating and authorizing actions that violated our constitution then they should be investigated and punished as well. Unfortunately, because of the level of secrecy in effect when congressional members of both parties met with CIA advisors it very likely this will turn into a "he said, she said" situation and the truth of what was actually reported will never be known.

C'mon now RAF, you blast others for "reading into" your posts then pull that with me?! The article deals with specific opinions written by the Bush Justice Dept and the actions which occurred as a result of those opinions, period. Bush's Justice Dept. was also accused of firing States attorneys because they failed to bring charges against voter abuse even though they lacked proper evidence. Doesn't that pattern of behavior bother you? (Especially within the Justice Dept). Granted a President SHOULD be able to choose whomever he wants but you would hope that decision would be based slightly MORE on a lawyers qualifications than his willingness to operate as a thug on behalf of ANY party or ideology. If we start allowing "legal experts" hired by ANY President to usurp our constitution whenever we are threatened then we will be giving up much more than simply our rights and freedoms. There is NEVER justification for human rights abuses or the overstepping of our constitutional rights by ANY Party in power. Those who uphold justice and value human rights validate and protect this nation.
Andre, you are constantly crying and whining about IMAGINARY crimes and injustices committed by the Obama Administration. If in 8 years our country is still in the mess it's currently in, then by all means fire away but until then quit crying like a baby. Oh, and try to come up with something a little more original than "Chairman" Obama. You sound like those American hating sociopaths, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly and Beck. (Make sure you look up the attributes of a sociopath before you admonish my use of the term to describe those mentioned)

http://matoosaferrera.newsvine.com/_news...

Torture is Un-American - deal with it.

Personally I hope one of these case does go to trial...

I notice panama didn't want to tell us how much he has done to protect this nation. This whole issue of bringing up possible prosecution now is for one purpose only. To get something else in the news cycle besides all of chairman obamas failures. His health care agenda is failing, he has no idea what to do in Afghanistan, his foreign policy is nothing more than to apologize for America. Vice-chairman biden so far was right about one thing he said concerning chairman obama, he isn't qualified to be president.

Yes and in Red's eyes everything they did was against the law. Until there are any convictions there is no guilty party under our current legal system. So keep throwing your words of devotion to ideology around...they show yours also.

Andre, you'd defend Bush and the Neocons regardless of the illegal acts they committed. A warped sense of values led to the notion that violating the constitution and suspending human rights would make us safer. Your devotion to ideology blinds you from the truth. Vatoloco is a blind as you are, andre. Why should Neocons in the former Bush administration get a pass for breaking the law they swore to uphold? Buy hey, I don't expect either of you to figure it out. Judging by your posts, rational evaluations are not your strong suit.

Hey panama, by the way, tell us about all you've done to protect this nation. I've already served in a war, how about you motor mouth?

Leave it to panama red to only want to bring to justice certain law breakers. You go join the taliban you left wing nut job. I didn't defend anyone, apparently you can't read very well. Besides, it's "you're" not "your" in the instance you are using it. Dolt.

usaret, I'm not sure what a 'deterant' is??

vatoloco, pointing out the very real failed policies of the Bush administration is not the same thing as saying that Bush is responsible for all of the country's ills. You must have graduated from the Beck-Limpbrain Institute of Gross Generalizations and Deceipt (with honors, I'm sure). By the way, Obama is your president, too, even if you didn't vote for him.

"I've never heard anyone say that Bush is responsible for all of the country's ills"

Are you serious? Where were you when campaign king Obama kept harping on "We cannot continue on the failed policies of this (Bush) administration?
Obama lied to you all and you took it hook line and sinker. He ran on that platform based on fear throughout the campaign.

"The Democrats are bending over backwards to find common ground with Republicans"

Your President said that this legilslation would pass without GOP support. And, Pukosi also said "I cannot have a bill without a public option" Who are you crapping?

Gandalf:Based on your own comments one can understand why nothing gets done. You say the Republicans are the deterant----couldn't prove it by me based on your comments.

vatoloco, who are you trying to deceive? The Democrats are bending over backwards to find common ground with Republicans on several issues, to no avail. The Republicans have shown their strategy is to be as uncooperative as possible in finding solutions, thus creating an image of Obama failure. Luckily, the American people aren't quite as dumb as the Republicans think (hence the approval ratings for Republicans in Congress that continue to drop through the floor). People see right through the Republican efforts to contrive partisan differences on virtually every issue.

Secondly, I've never heard anyone say that Bush is responsible for all of the country's ills. Nonetheless, there is a clear understanding among citizens that Bush and the Republicans certainly left quite a few hot steaming turds that need to be dealt with, most notably the economy and the wars.

What is it with this Bush Obsession Syndrome?

1. The Dems have all the power and they still can't do nothing with it but play the blame game.
2. They can't come up with anything of substance but blame Bush for all of this country's ills.

It's like a bad divorce............Move on already!

It's interesting that the best defenses people can come up with are "it's grotesque but necessary" (uh, Jessup was a satire), and "neener neener so are you". In other words, everybody agrees that the constitution was flouted.

Leave it to andre to defend the repugnant legal opinions Bush's justice department adopted that led to the worst “justified” human rights abuses since Japanese citizens were rounded up during World War II. Ours is a great nation, but there have been times when our Government’s actions have been dishonorable, to say the least. The complete disregard for the US constitution by those serving in the Bush Justice Department is a prime example. There is no excuse for what happened to that Canadian citizen of Muslim decent and those who wrote the legal opinions “justifying” the abuse that individual suffered should be held accountable. There is NO justification for torture under any circumstances andre whether your Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. Only a fool would attempt to compare civil and human rights violations to tax evasion. If you don’t believe our constitution is worth defending andre go join the Taliban. They also share your values

to all relishing in this - be very careful what you ask for ... we might be all surprised as to who knew what & when.

Heeeeeere's Johnny! - the best ever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8Pe...

Lets not stop there, lets also prosecute all the tax cheating democrats too. When the democrats are out of office come the next election cycle they can look forward to law suits as well. What comes around, goes around.

It's to see that Ashcroft and Yoo are likely to be held to account for their illegal actions. It shows hope for the Constitution and the rule of law. Now for the rest of the Bush administration criminals...

Sow the seeds but do you really want to reap the harvest?

Accountability, boys, accountability.

It's about time. The best part is that judges appointed by a Republican President are the ones that refused to dismiss the cases.