So what's your point?

first they get bad intel anyway, that's why they check it out before Acting on it.

second....Nobody has to know, and they don't in some cases.
I don't hear a great deal about how our enemies have tortured Our soldiers.

Why not?





You are right in that they check the intel as much as they can though often times with tortures, they will more likely get the bad intel than good. Why not use what intelligence and analysis we have and use that?


We don't hear a great deal but by us doing this, it gives them the right to do it. I do not want them to be able to do that and say it is justified in any way.
 
You are right in that they check the intel as much as they can though often times with tortures, they will more likely get the bad intel than good. Why not use what intelligence and analysis we have and use that?
I'm sure they are using it All.

We don't hear a great deal but by us doing this, it gives them the right to do it. I do not want them to be able to do that and say it is justified in any way.

So if they are doing it (by that logic) why doesn't it give us the "right"?
 
I pay my taxes to help the military pay people to do shit I couln't do. Am I in favor of torture....not necessarily. Do I see a necessity for it....yea.
 
The last part, he mentions fighting all those who have used torture. I did not say I wanted the attacks to occur, but to look at previous attacks and to use what we know about those patters, use what we know about the groups. I did not say to let them attack and use the aftermath. Know thine enemy.

Yet while analyzing the previous attacks, and making no effort to try to force intel from detainees, more attacks occur. More people die.

And in all actuality i have my doubts the waterboarding did a whole lot as compared to being able to try to predict, be sure of what the environment is and who is in and who is acting strangely.

The military has state that there has been great success in the waterboarding technique for gleaning intel from detainees.

Many of the people who have been taken in had no ties to any terrorist organisations,

This occurs in every war. The fact remains that these same people may have ties to people who DO have ties to terrorism.

and many people as a whole have been condemning the attacks though that had pretty much nothing to do with what I said.

Ah, so. Key woprds "many people as a whole". You made it seem as though those being waterboarded were decrying terrorism.
 
I'm sure they are using it All.



So if they are doing it (by that logic) why doesn't it give us the "right"?




Indeed it would. The problem is that as soon as we do it, they will point it out and say that they can use it. Which again I do not want them to be able to do it to anyone. But it gives them the check to be able to


I won't say they aren't using it all, but again the tortures will generally give bad intel. Making the job harder and whatnot. We have the means to get the best intelligence we can on these guys. Why not use it?
 
That grey area is in the Geneva Convention as well. Bet you didn't know that enemy combatants who don't wear a uniform can be summarily executed, didya?

i'm liking the grey area, I bet if we just shot few it would distract from the surfing lessons.

-yeah, I'm OK with that.
 
Indeed it would. The problem is that as soon as we do it, they will point it out and say that they can use it. Which again I do not want them to be able to do it to anyone. But it gives them the check to be able to


I won't say they aren't using it all, but again the tortures will generally give bad intel. Making the job harder and whatnot. We have the means to get the best intelligence we can on these guys. Why not use it?

It matters not what is done, mostly. We are but dirt under their feet anyway.
The diplomats that Do matter, I don't think care so much, just some people Here.
 
You know bottom line is . . .

If I was to be captured and taken into custody by any military/paramilitary group, I would perfer it to be the US military.
 
HERE is the video of Zarqawi receiving two 500 pound bombs courtesy of Air Force F-16s.

zarqawidead.jpg


http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002483.html

95fcdb2a9e5d3fa0d69f30df87f1cb5b440c734c
 
Mukasey was confirmed an hour ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309798,00.html

Senate Confirms Mukasey as Attorney General
Thursday, November 08, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed retired judge Michael Mukasey as attorney general to replace Alberto Gonzales, who was forced from office in a scandal over his handling of the Justice Department.

Mukasey was confirmed late Thursday as the United States' 81st attorney general after a sharp debate over his refusal to say whether the waterboarding interrogation technique, which simulates drowning, is torture.

Republicans were solidly behind President George W. Bush' nominee. Democrats said their votes were not so much for Mukasey as they were for restoring a leader to a Justice Department left adrift after Gonzales' resignation in September.

In the end, Mukasey was confirmed by a 53-40 vote.

The choice, according to one of those Democrats, was essentially between "whether to confirm Michael Mukasey as the next attorney general or whether to leave the Department of Justice without a real leader for the next 14 months," said one Democratic supporter, Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

"This is the only chance we have," she said, referring to Bush's threat to appoint an acting attorney general not subject to Senate confirmation.

But members of her own party did not agree. Mukasey, his opponents argued, refused to say whether waterboarding is torture and put the onus on Congress to pass a law against the practice.

"This is like saying when somebody murders somebody with a a baseball bat and you say, 'We had a law against murder but we never mentioned baseball bats,"' said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat. "Murder is murder. Torture is torture."

Being better than Gonzales or an acting attorney general is not enough qualification for the job, said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

"The next attorney general must restore confidence in the rule of law," he said. "We cannot afford to take the judgment of an attorney general who either does not know torture when he sees it or is willing to look the other way."

The confirmation vote capped 10 months of scandal and resignations at the Justice Department. Mukasey's chief Democratic patron, Sen. Chuck Schumer, who like Mukasey is from New York, drove the probe into the purge of nine federal prosecutors that helped push Gonzales out.

The debate came after a tense day of negotiations that at one point featured Majority Leader Harry Reid threatening to postpone Mukasey's confirmation until December. His confirmation had long been certainty despite the debate over waterboarding.

Waterboarding, used by interrogators to make someone feel as if he is going to drown, is banned by domestic law and international treaties. But U.S. law applies to Pentagon personnel and not the CIA. The administration will not say whether it has allowed the agency's employees to use it against terror detainees.

"The United States will not be viewed kindly if we confirm as chief law enforcement officer of this country someone who is unwilling or unable to recognize torture when he sees it," said Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat.

Mukasey has called waterboarding personally "repugnant," and in a letter to senators said he did not know enough about how it has been used to define it as torture. He also said he thought it would be irresponsible to discuss it since doing so could make interrogators and other government officials vulnerable to lawsuits.

"He felt that he could not make that pronouncement without placing people at risk to be sued or perhaps even criminally prosecuted," said Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mukasey, who received a strong endorsement from Schumer, was the White House's first choice to replace Gonzales. Gonzales announced his resignation on Aug. 27, and the White House interviewed Mukasey the same day. Three weeks later, Bush introduced the 66-year-old Mukasey as "a tough but fair judge" and asked the Senate to confirm him quickly.

Mukasey, the former chief U.S. district judge in the Manhattan courthouse just blocks from ground zero, was first appointed to the bench in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan. He also worked for four years as a trial prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York's Southern District — one of the Justice Department's busiest and highest-profile offices in the country.

Mukasey oversaw some of the most significant U.S. terror trials in the years before and after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

He sentenced Omar Abdel Rahman, known as the "blind sheik," to life in prison for a plot to blow up New York City landmarks, and he signed in 2002 the material witness warrant that let the FBI arrest U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. That warrant marked the start of a case that wound its way through several federal courts as the government declared Padilla an enemy combatant and held him for 3 1/2 years before he was convicted last month on terrorism-related charges.

In an opinion article in The Wall Street Journal, Mukasey criticized U.S. national security law as too weak in some areas by noting that prosecutors are sometimes forced to reveal details of cases at the risk of tipping off terrorists. He is also a supporter of the government's anti-terror USA Patriot Act, wryly writing in 2004 that the "awkward name may very well be the worst thing about the statute."

Mukasey, a partner at New York-based law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, is also a close friend to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican. He stepped down as an adviser to Giuliani's presidential campaign, on which he served as part of an advisory committee on judicial nominations.
 
Back
Top