NO!!!
Get out... carry your friends and family... AND VOTE!
AubreyJ.........

NO!!!
Get out... carry your friends and family... AND VOTE!
AubreyJ.........

Leo,

O'reilly got Rangel on his back foot, for a few seconds. That is your argument? That's it?

The main question is:

Wait, wait, wait. How do you think you're going to get Khalid Sheik Mohammed to tell you about his al Qaeda associates without coerced interrogation? How would you get him to tell you?

The answer is of course that Khalid Sheik Mohammed isn't going to rat on his buddies, even with coersion. So you don't get the information either way.

You really think that a little sleep deprivation and waterboarding is going to work to get Mohammed to spill his beans? I know you don't. Neither does O'reilly. Spook, do you think so? You're the closest thing we have here to an expert on this subject.

So why the post? Because O'reilly calculated that it would be good enough argument to get a Democrat stammering for a few lousy seconds. That's all O'reilly cares about. He knows the real reason we don't bother torturing Sheik Mohammed, but he just doesn't care. The sound bite is more important.

This, folks, is why is't not safe to vote for a Rebpulican. It's called disingenousness. It's why we see Rove proclaiming he thinks the Rebpulicans will hold the House. He knows the truth.

So do you.

My wife handed me my absentee ballot, filled in ~ straight Republican! She assured me that either my signature would be on the ballot or my @$$ would be on the couch, I signed and mailed it in.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed did give up his associates after being waterboarded; he held out longer than the other animals, but they broke him nonetheless.

“KSM reportedly stayed mum until interrogators introduced him to waterboarding, a procedure in which he was submerged until he feared drowning, then pulled back to safety. KSM broke after just a few minutes of this. He then unlocked a virtual Swiss vault of priceless information on terrorists and their designs.”

so much for your love affair with a terrorist! Yeah, right, trust a liberal with National Security.

Spook,

Would you mind sharing with Mr Oliver what waterboarding will likely do for Khalid and any other possible troublemaker who falls into our hands? Maybe we need to remind everyone how useful this technique really is. Probably works on non-foreign traitors and local treacherous folk, too.

I take it some of the posters here have never been waterboarded, I havent either but from the sound of it the experience is terrifying. Undergo such treatment a few times and you might just "spill the beans", even Khalid, who is purported to be the toughest man on earth.

The problem is that the people who screamed on 9/12/01 "Why didnt you DO something!" are the same people who are now screaming "Dont you dare use any method beyond harsh language to get information!"

I know the liberals have a deep concern for the feelings of ALL men, even the savages who want us dead, so it is with a heavy heart that I am forced to inform them that stern looks and cursing just isnt going to sway a terrorist to talk.

This, folks, is why it's not safe to vote for a democrat. It called disingenuousness. Its why we see liberals proclaiming their superior ability to fight the terrorists. They know the truth.

So do you.

"The answer is of course that Khalid Sheik Mohammed isn't going to rat on his buddies, even with coersion. So you don't get the information either way."

Another flat out lie from a left wing kook. As we all know (and have known for a while) Khalid gave up 11 of his fellow terrorists after 3.5 minutes of waterboarding. Those plots right there saved how many innocent lives?

What is it with the lefts love and admiration for terrorists?

Guys,

If waterboarding is so effective, why are the Republicans abandoning it? McCain and Roberts are the only two in that article to admit it, the rest are being more careful with their tongues (as they should be).

Hmm, kinda makes you wonder, no? McCain wants to get rid of the thing you say works. Why? Do they know something we don't? And does this mean that McCain and Roberts are now on your "public enemy" list? And will you nominate them (read McCain) in 2008?

That list is getting mighty long these days. You guys like to argue with us kooks, but McCain is either selling you out to the libs (not likely) or he knows more than what is posted on the internet (quite likely). It's a good thing there are people like McCain willing to stand up against you guys.

Oliver:
--Let's face it. KSM sang like a canary when faced with severe discomfort. I am reading the 9/11 Commission report and though I did not come across any reference on interrogation techniques, KSM certainly was talkative.
--Boo hoo hoo, I don't feel sorry for the rat if he went for a ducking.
--The big brave fearless civilian killing terrorists are shown to be cowardly bullies when faced with a bigger meaner bully.
--In a perfect world, there would be no pain and sadness. The world is far from perfect, wake up and small the coffee. I agree with my Knucklehead Bush Republicans friends on this issue. You got to do what you got to do.

"You got to do what you got to do."

Canuckguy,

Thanks for the common sense.

Canuck,

Well you've put me in a pickle. Us libs disagreeing with each other? Could that ever happen?

I read the reports (from ABC News) and just assumed they were bogus or half-truths. And I hear all the talk about the "disagreements with the Bush administration" on torture, and McCain's and the other Republican's objections made me think that the information gained was unreliable. Surely sometimes the terrorists tell the truth, and sometimes they lie or make up stories to stop the torture.

Why would McCain want to keep us in the dark about real, actionable intelligence that would help us win the war on terror? McCain is no terorrist lover. Surely if torture worked he (and the other Republicans) would be all for it. So what gives?

McCain is playing both sides to improve his chances to get the nomination in 2008. He knows that the MSM is mainly liberal and needs their support to get the nomination. So he panders to the media to get attention.

Short of permanent physical harm, subjecting terrorists to "intense interrogation techniques" is warranted and necessary to prevent further terrorist attacks and save the lives of innocents and our Armed Forces.

Jim Oliver,

As you have been handed a serious smackdown for your proven false assumptions, your credibility meter is hereby set back to ZERO.

A-10,

...your credibility meter is hereby set back to ZERO.

Gee, my credibilty meter used to be greater than zero?

Seriously, if all you guys (Canuck included) are going to take form this the opinion that torture is that effective and McCain is just a panderer, I'll have to take what I can get. I'm still not convinced that the terrorists always (or even often) tell the truth under torture. If a terrorist is able to lie under torture, and we believe him, it could cost the lives of the Soldiers and Maries who act under this intelligence, and would never hear about these incidences...contrary to the ABC news reports about KSM. That is the classic argument against torture, and it has been repeated for a long time (even by non-Canadians!)

And yes, just repeating something (either way) doesn't make it true. But if we do torture, let's hope our intelligence agencies are able to tell the differnece between truth and lies, as they will undoubtably get a fair share of both.

I think it was ABC news that did not have or was not telling the whole truth as they have an agenda as well.

Jim, a serious question for you. What is your definition of "torture?" Since every single technique our military uses they also use on themselves in training are we now torturing ourselves?

Since every single technique we use leaves no long term effect is that still "torture" to you?

CJ

I would define waterboarding as torture. Cold-room treatment, stress positions and sleep deprivation aren't torture.

I don't like the "no long term effect" definition of acceptable torture. You can do a lot to a guy without leaving a mark on him.

I did read a post somewhere that claimed the military waterboarded it's own recruits. Let's just say I'm skeptical of that one. I'd like to hear from anybody who was waterboarded at the hands of his owm men before I'll beleive it.

I'm not sure why several of you think I'm some kind of expert on waterboarding. I was in signals intelligence, and I retired 17 years ago. Now my 20-year-old Marine nephew tells me that waterboarding is one of, in not the most, effective methods for breaking an individual without doing physical harm, but even he won't tell me whether or not it was used on him during survival training. I have read that our Special Forces guys are subjected to it.

Jim, A-10 beat me to the punch on McCain. In my opinion the guy is somewhat of an enigma. The obvious explanation is that he does play both sides -- for what ends, I'm not sure. I think he just likes the media attention, and I disagree with A-10 that McCain will be a presidential candidate in '08 -- too old and he's pissed off too many people whose support he'd need. Just my opinion, though. I could be wrong -- wouldn't be the first time.

Spook,

Thanks for the reply. You gotta know more about it than me (pretty low standard there).

Also, apollogies to everyone, including Canuck, for running my big mouth off before I checked my facts. Most lib wackos make it too easy for you conservatives to score points...I really didn't intend on being one of them.

What Rangel was referring to was the fact that not everyone at Gitmo is an established terrorist like KSM. Some of the detainees were picked up in Abu-Graib style dragnets or captured by Pakistani bounty hunters. Others, like a group of 6 Uighurs, have been cleared by federal courts but the administration has kept them in legal limbo. It would be nice is our intelligence and law enforcment agencies never made mistakes, but they do. We used to use habeus corpus to catch those mistakes. Its usually good to establish for certain that someone is a terrorist BEFORE you torture them.

Jim O

I was a Navy Aviator and we went through several training programs to show us what captivity would be like, and how EASY it is to BREAK someone without torture. Our men do go through it. I was not waterboarded but I saw it done. There is no physical pain involved... its all psychological. It is quick and quite effective.

You said you believe that waterboarding is torture, but you never explained why. You admit you have never even seen it. So you are therefore going on third and fourth hand liberal propaganda. You have nothing else on which to base your opinion (or should I say "feeling"). So why don't you just leave this to the MEN who know what they are doing?

Ok Oliver. Anyway, you asked me questions about McCain but I will defer to the others as I don't follow the individual Democrats' bleatings that closely. And I am not a true blue liberal, I am a mixture of left, right, liberal, conservative and moderate with a pinch of fascist.

Kind of a mongrel, I guess.

Jim, see if a guy named "Gunny Bob", or Bob Newman, who has a show on KOA am in Denver, is available on podcast. Gunny Bob, who does international seminars on security, has often discussed his waterboarding experiences, and explained how those who use it have to go through it. There is absolutely no harm done, aside from an occasional need for dry drawers. No water enters the respiratory system. It is 100% psychological.

He has also explained that one very effective technique requires no direct contact whatsoever---the suspect is in an interrogation room, and during his questioning he can hear the distinct sounds of torture from a nearby room---mostly screaming and maybe begging for mercy. Finally, when he appears to be adequate unnerved, he is told that the other interrogtion room is finally available, and he might even get a glimpse of "blood" being hosed out of the room. It is very effective.

I'll bet you would equate that with real "torture", wouldn't you, Jim? After all, the poor guy WOULD be uncomfortable.

Not quite as uncomfortable as having to choose between being burned to death or jumping out a 90th story window, but not completely at ease, which is evidently the standard.

I have a brother who is a real BDSer, Ranty Rhodes groupie, Airhead who cannot believe any good thing about any Republican. He was going on about "torture" and I asked him what he would do if a guy moved into his neighborhood, a real rough-looking guy with some pit bulls, and then pets started to disappear and the word was that these beloved pets were being used to train the pit bulls to kill. I asked him if his beloved dog were to disappear, would he torture the guy in question to find out where she was and keep her from being torn apart by savage dogs and he never hesitated---he said "Absolutely". And my response was "There you go..."

Just bring it on home. Don't make it so abstract and distant. If your daughter was missing and you were sure who took her, just how far would you go to find out where she was being held? Would you waterboard the suspect? That is only one life in the balance, but would you do it?

The lives that have been saved have been distant abstractions. You don't know those people, or at least you don't know that the lives saved were those of people you know and might even love. You don't know that it was your kids' school saved from a bombing, or your spouse's airplane, or your parents' retirement community. So you feel very smug and certain about condeming the actions that kept these vague attacks from happening. So bring it on home. How far would you go to stop a group from firebombing your child's kindergarten room?

McCain is a political whore. He knows what torture is, he endured it, and he knows perfectly well that we already have laws against it, and do not do it. He knows that what we do is not torture. But he had a chance to grandstand and pander to the Left, and he jumped at it.

The gross intellectual and moral dishonesty in blatantly redefining a serious matter such as torture and trivializing it by equating it with nearly anything remotely unpleasant (or "demeaning") is disgusting. Torture is serious, and deserves to be taken seriously, not minimized by comparing it to fleeting fear or discomfort which doesn't even impose physical harm.

McCain is a political whore.

Yeah, that's the word I was lookin' for. To use a recent analogy, McCain's got about as much chance of being President as Arnold does of winning an Oscar.

Spook,

I don't think he will be the candidate of the GOP in 2008 either. He lost my support when he waited a week to respond to Kerry when offered the Vice President ticket for the Dem's. He should have said: "Not only no, but hell no".

I respect and admire his service and what he put up with in the Hanoi Hilton, but the "whore" title is appropriate.

I too underwent SERE training while a member of a Long Range Surviellance unit (human intelligence gathering deep behind enemy lines). During the training, they made life very uncomfortable for us, but stopped before they got to waterboarding, etc. We were trained on what to expect, but they did not subject us to "aggressive interrogation techniques".

J.O.,

You had crawled to .5 (on a scale of 1 to 100) on the Credibility Meter, but I had to set you back to ZERO. But keep trying, maybe you'll get off the snide.

You probably won't find information gathered during "aggressive interrogation techniques" being used to directly task Army Special Opns or Marine units. The intelligence gathered would be compared to that gathered from other sources and means. The intelligence would be used to confirm or deny previously gather intelligence. For example, if you suspect that Terrorist X was involved in a specific event and typically operated within a specific location, and your detainee provides information that confirms your suspicions, the "aggressive interrogation techniques" were effective.

Almiranta and others,

My response about waterboarding being torture is based on ignorance. As you say, few have seen it done, and fewer still (fortunately) have been through it. Although there is no pain involved, I still consider it "psychological torture". Almiranta, I have not seen it done, and I agree that waterboarding is not as severe as physical torture, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I only made the arbitrary distinction between what is torture and what isn't because CJ asked me to.

Also remember I never said that torture shouldn't be used for moral reasons. I only thought that it would be ineffective, because I thought the individual being tortured could lie easily to stop it.

After reading your posts, and doing a bunch of other internet searches I am changing my mind. You all have more or less convinced me that lying under torture (or "psychological torture") is very difficult indeed. If true, then these interrogation techniques should be quite effective, and the new law is just about right in enforcing it.

I'm still a liberal, though. And I hope the rest of the country looks at McCain the way you do...maybe Hilary can win after all.

Jim,

Your emphasis seems prevalent on the left where they suggest;
A.) We use torture and define it as almost anything unpleasant (as opposed to real torture – detaching limbs or organs, grinding or burning body parts while alive etc… or doing these kinds of things to your spouse, children or other family members while being forced to watch.)
B.) Using (any) torture can render a wrong answer as easily as a right answer which suggest a 50 / 50 crap shot at best.
C.) Using torture (anything unpleasant) is beneath our sophisticated culture regardless of the results and undermines our options for further negotiations.

As several other have already pointed out, the approved methods of interrogation used by our intelligence does not come anywhere close to what would be defined as REAL torture. Also, why does the left not give our intelligence community more credit when deciphering what is good and bad information. Don’t you think they’re skilled enough to piece information from different sources together like a puzzle to see the big picture? Though they are not perfect, you might be surprised how well they do their job and how many lives they’ve saved through those efforts. Really, they don’t jump far fetched conclusions based on a single piece of potential evidence. Please give them a little more credit than the far left who seem bent on destruction of Bush rather than protecting people from terrorist and terrorist acts.