Thread: Question for Kookie

Sam ,

That is the problem , I think a few on here just might want a cave man for a leader.

Originally Posted by Sam

No I doubt Bin laden would be concerned-that is why he is considered a terrorist and evil. Would you ever want a leader who sits in a cave and plans how to attack or torture innocent people?

That torture is wrong is a given for any moral society.
That we argue about its employment is good. Its what separates us from the uncivilized. We SHOULD be concerned about how other civilized countries view this as these countries believe in rules of conflict. HOWEVER,
Our enemies of the past several conflicts fight with no rules nor do they care what other countries think of their doctrines. You can include with that, countries of considerable power and magnitude such as the "new" Russia and China who hold little regard for human rights. This is one reason Putin is on the cover of Time Magazine. I can assure you, Russia and China care nothing much at all what the western world thinks of their policies. For all our quibbling over whether or not to use torture, how its being done or where, becomes only an exercise in self gratification. It reinforces our enemies belief that we have no will of our own. If we can't decide HOW to fight, its easy for our enemies to believe that many of us WON'T fight and its not all THAT hard to see how true THAT is. Arguing the morality of torture is a noble one we must have but the time for it is before we fight. We either do it to defeat the enemy or we stand our moral ground and refuse but for now, its more important to decide and unite and move on. Our indecision and arguing emboldens the enemy to a degree you cannot imagine.

Originally Posted by Dom1

So, in summation, it seems that a few lefties don't really have a problem with torture, just who is condoning it.

What is the problem with torture? I must say I have some liberal views - at the same time I really don't see a problem with this....

If someone were hurting my family and they needed a little pain to give up some info, ya - I'd fuckin' hurt 'em. And I really hate Bush, really a lot! But I have to agree with him on this point. If someone had been tortured BEFORE 911, think of the pain this country and the american people could have been spared.

I think this is an issue where people once again let their "morality" rule what should be common sence. Water boarding - I am so for it!!!!! Hurt 'em torture 'em I don't fuckin' care - I care about the people of this country and protecting the people of this country. These people that are being tortured are not americans - they are not entitled to the same rights as you or I. Our forfathers built this nation - not the fuckin' muslims! Would I sacrifice anyone of them for my kid - you bet your ass I would. And the entire argument that it makes us no better than them, I don't see why this is relevant. When people bring war and terrorism to your house - the fight is no longer about fair, it's about winning.

We've found out very quickly that we're fighting people who could care less about our rules. Their mentality is "whatever it takes, however long it takes". I believe it should be ours as well.

Our indecision and arguing emboldens the enemy to a degree you cannot imagine

.[/QUOTE]


G.W. ITS YOU!!...YOU FUCKING MONKEY!!

Originally Posted by Dom1

I never said they were one and the same, what I said was that they both condoned torture - and I am not sure how many times or different ways you want me to say it. I never said they treaed torture the exact same way. I am saying that both condoned torture, which is absolutely 100% true. I am also saying that people who condemn Bush and defend Clinton for it are frauds when it comes to torture. Fact is he did condone it. Also, we were shipping the captured people to three main places, and there are quotes that from the men in charge of doing it of having a choice where to send them.

Dom,

You may be right.....maybe they did condone torture....or maybe it was the lesser of two evils at the time. I don't know. But, let me give you a hypothetical. I'm personally against the death penalty. And let's assume I'm a police officer in, say, Michigan and I apprehend a fugitive wanted for several murders in Texas. Do I bring him in knowing that he will be extradited to Texas and face the death penalty and if so, does that mean I condone the death penalty? See, based on my understanding of many (not all) these renditions, they seem to parallel this hypothetical.

One big difference in the 90s, Dom, there was no Guantanamo and no secret CIA prisons (at least as far as we know) to indefinitely hold people without charges, a trial, etc. And, to the constant chagrin of many on the right, the Clinton Administration considered terrorism as much of law enforcement issue as of a military one....with indictments, trials, etc. And when there were indictments, we took them back to the States, tried them, and threw them in jail....like Ramzi Youseff for example. In the case of these Egyptian guys, what were we (the US) going to do with them?

I would like to know if any of the following happened during Clinton's watch:
1) Did we rendition people for the sole purpose of extracting information from them via the host country?
2) Did we rendition anyone currently under US indictment?
3) Did we rendition people to countries where they were NOT currently under indictment (or the equivalent thereof)?

If any of these happened, then clearly at some level, we were condoning torture. If not, then it's more grey....at least, to me.

My only premise is that people who call Bush out for torture and not Clinton are frauds. I have made that perfectly clear a number of times now.

And I have made it clear that I need to understand the circumstances of these renditions for both Clinton and Bush. I don't think it's a black and white as you paint it to be. If that makes me a "fraud", then so be it.

G.W. ITS YOU!!...YOU FUCKING MONKEY!!

OOOPPS !! I used a "Bushism"...gotta be careful on these forums ....don't wanna stir up the seething mob!

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Dom,

You may be right.....maybe they did condone torture....or maybe it was the lesser of two evils at the time. I don't know. But, let me give you a hypothetical. I'm personally against the death penalty. And let's assume I'm a police officer in, say, Michigan and I apprehend a fugitive wanted for several murders in Texas. Do I bring him in knowing that he will be extradited to Texas and face the death penalty and if so, does that mean I condone the death penalty? See, based on my understanding of many (not all) these renditions, they seem to parallel this hypothetical.

One big difference in the 90s, Dom, there was no Guantanamo and no secret CIA prisons (at least as far as we know) to indefinitely hold people without charges, a trial, etc. And, to the constant chagrin of many on the right, the Clinton Administration considered terrorism as much of law enforcement issue as of a military one....with indictments, trials, etc. And when there were indictments, we took them back to the States, tried them, and threw them in jail....like Ramzi Youseff for example. In the case of these Egyptian guys, what were we (the US) going to do with them?

I would like to know if any of the following happened during Clinton's watch:
1) Did we rendition people for the sole purpose of extracting information from them via the host country?
2) Did we rendition anyone currently under US indictment?
3) Did we rendition people to countries where they were NOT currently under indictment (or the equivalent thereof)?

If any of these happened, then clearly at some level, we were condoning torture. If not, then it's more grey....at least, to me.



And I have made it clear that I need to understand the circumstances of these renditions for both Clinton and Bush. I don't think it's a black and white as you paint it to be. If that makes me a "fraud", then so be it.

I never said it was black and white Norman, but you have said that I do to attempt to undermine an argument which I am not making. I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies in the people who condemn Bush for condoning torture but not Clinton. They are out there and it is obvious they don't give a shit about torture, at least not enough to actually admit a Democratic President OK'd the outsourcing of torture.

As to your conditions you listed, number one is obviously yes. Don't know about number two. Number three is just dotting some "i's" and crossing some "t's". We want someone so we ask for another country to issue a warrant, it isn't a coincidence that we are informed of "people of interest" by Albanian intelligence and then suddenly a warrant is issued for their arrest by the Egyptians, only to have us go in and arrest them (while killing one I believe) and then send them to Egypt and collect the intelligence.

There is no maybe, they did condone torture. Unless you are calling Michael Scheuer and Richard Clarke liars. If so then OK, but lets be clear, you are calling them liars if you doubt that we condoned torture.

What were we going to do with the Egyptian guys? Well, if they didn't commit crimes against the US we would do nothing I suppose. If we wanted information from them then we would get Egypt to charge them with something so we could bring them in, which we did. We would do so knowing that they would be tortured but it is OK because not only will we be getting information from them, but the people who scream loudest about torture are Democrats and in their very partisan eyes we can do no wrong . . . . EVER.

But back to what were we going to do with the Egyptian guys. Exactly what we did Norman. We should have recognized people we watned information from and captured them so that the Egyptians could hook up electrodes to their genitals and maybe they could be whipped for a few hours. That way not only do we get some information, but we are totally innocent because we didn't actually do the torturing.

You hypothetical isn't the same at all. It would be if part of the US's job was to go to other countries and capture people wanted by a third party nation . . . . but it isn't.

Dum1's a man from Nantucket,
had a tiny dick and kept trying to suck it.
He developed a grin
bumped his head with his shin
and said my sisters having a baby
and I cant wait to fuck it.

Originally Posted by Cookie Parker

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Audio: Clinton endorses “torture” in special cases; Update: World opinion opposes “torture”

Based on BS like this? NAh....Bush is the one endorsing it and calling for it and used $5,000 bounties to get his jollies from the experience....he's the CinC...Clinton is running for office and has opinions....but the ACT of torture is under Bush...he does it and condones it and lies to the American people and Congress about it...just like you are here....you fucking fascist NEw World Order fucking waste...

Hey stupid, it wasn't about Hillary. Do you have a comprehension problem?

Originally Posted by Cookie Parker

Your strawman arguments are not only predictable at this venture, they are tiresome and tedious and come from a mind incapable of reading comprehension.

Bush is the president and it is under HIS direction that the US tortures....Clinton made a political campaign speech, but is NOT in a power to control any direction in the US to or not to torture...apples and oranges...look at Swift Boat...all lies and all found to be lies..should Bush be impeached like Bill was for lying? Aren't poltical ads supposed to be truths, taking your stand here on Clinton and her political campaign. BAsed upon your logic, Bush should be impeached because of the political ads on Swift Boat which were all lies...

Wrong. You haven't returned which I think is ironic because you speak of others who run away and this is just the third thread today where you have ran away.

Clinton did condone torture and it involved much more than any political speech. Perhaps you should make it a policy to know at least a little about something before you post.