Mr. President...how far are you willing to go to save an American Life?

[92bDad]

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=1348

What is the freakin problem? The title of the thread was the title of the story, which is what the link goes through.

The Title of the Story IS:

Mr. Obama...how far are you willing to go to save an American Life?

Who ever changed the titles fo the thread has now made the title a little offensive!!!

________________________________________________ here's a samping with the title_____________________________________

Mr. Obama... How far would you go to save an American life?




Posted by Bobby Eberle
April 22, 2009 at 8:00 am

In case you hadn't heard, America is no longer fighting a "war on terror." That's right... Obama and company have decided to drop the phrase along with the term "terrorist." Apparently, it's fine to use the word "pirate," but we can no longer send the "wrong" message by referring to terrorists as "terrorists."

[Mavdog]

it's darn clear that our government will use any legal act to get information from prisoners.

they should not be using an illegal act, the end does not justify the means.

once our government chooses to ignore the legal chalk lines we are all in jeopardy.

[92bDad]

Exactly, thus the legal ways that were used under the Bush Administration should not be questioned today. Unless the Obama-Left is redifining what is legal?

Let's see ... Al Quida is no longer considered a Terrorist, but Conservatives ARE?

Seems to me that we are entering a very dangerous mindset, one that is not safe, being Conservative or Liberal...

It's as if things are redifined based on who is in power as opposed to following the origins of our Constitution.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Exactly, thus the legal ways that were used under the Bush Administration should not be questioned today. Unless the Obama-Left is redifining what is legal?

Let's see ... Al Quida is no longer considered a Terrorist, but Conservatives ARE?

Seems to me that we are entering a very dangerous mindset, one that is not safe, being Conservative or Liberal...

It's as if things are redifined based on who is in power as opposed to following the origins of our Constitution.

your grasp of the issue is not very solid.

the techniques used against prisoners held during the bush administration were done following attempts to cleanse its practice. the acts were not legal prior to the bush attempts to allow them, and the bush administrtion went to great lengths in their attempt to somehow legalize their use of this form of torture.

even many of those who worked in the bush administration admit the use of these techniques was and is against our laws and international agreements.

so no, the bush administration did not use "legal ways", they used illegal ways. just because the president says it is legal does not in itself make it so.

that's the issue.

[bernardos70]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8

[92bDad]

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/d...mo_code=7E7A-1

These are the same methods approved by congress, which has a list of Democrats approving them to begin with.

[dude1394]

Screw Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the horse he rode in on.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/d...mo_code=7E7A-1

These are the same methods approved by congress, which has a list of Democrats approving them to begin with.

did you read the article?

congress did not give approval, there is mention of members of congress being briefed, and even congress can pass an illegal act.

[92bDad]

Bottom line is tha these were enhanced interogation techniques.

That were used on ONLY 3 of the most hardened criminals who happen to have information that we knew they had. Through this interogation, they provided us with intel that helped to stop attacks and ultimately save Hundreds of Thousands of lives!!!

Let's not forget that through this interogation, we had medical personal on standby to ensure the safety of these criminals.

I would like to know if the terrorist exhibit the same concern for American lives as they cutting off the heads of our innocent citizens being held hostage?

A fair question...would you let a loved one be killed, knowing that you have a criminal in custody who has information that could save your loved one's life? Would you enhance your interogation if you believed at the time that this would result in gathering information that would save their lives?

What if you were the hostage? Would you want your family, friends, country to do everything in its power to get you back safely?

Keep in mind, this was only used on 3 people, and they indeed had the information that we knew they had.

This is the worst of all situations, but at the moment of the event, we must act quickly in order to save lives.

It's funny, I can compare this issue to abortion...would you abort a child in order to save the life of the mother? Would you interogate a criminal in order to save the lives of innocent civilians?

[fluid.forty.one]

The first part of this thread title is a little insulting.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

The first part of this thread title is a little insulting.

Not anymore...

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Not anymore...

Nice try, but it's still insulting!


Saint Obama
Overlord Obama
Beef Supreme Obama

These are titles fitting of a demigod's stature...

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

The first part of this thread title is a little insulting.

What is insulting? It's the REAL title of the article being referenced. Well until some control nut decided to change the title.

[u2sarajevo]

Fixed it all for you 92b, and thanks for the negative rep! You are now the 2nd person to ever do that to me.

[fluid.forty.one]

u2 is obviously the villain here

[fluid.forty.one]

92bDad... I get neg repped because I didn't like the thread calling our PRESIDENT, "Mr." ..

Really?

[Underdog]

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

92bDad... I get neg repped because I didn't like the thread calling our PRESIDENT, "Mr." ..

Really?

The neg rep is for whining about the title of the ARTICLE. If you don't like the ARTICLE then write a letter to the author of the ARTICLE.

By the way, how far would you go to save an American life?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

By the way, how far would you go to save an American life?

[chumdawg]

The reason Republicans are losing traction in national politics is that "God, guns, gays, and blacks" doesn't have the currency it used to. We are becoming progressive as a nation, and even the Republican party itself is leaning more toward the libertarian wing, which eschews big government but doesn't give much of a crap about God, guns, gays, or blacks.

You, 92b, are soon to be a relic of a bygone era.

And it couldn't happen soon enough, as far as I am concerned.

[92bDad]

Chum,

go ahead and believe that. Nothing like seeing conservative republicans staying under the radar. There is a wind blowing for 2010, and it is a great dislike for the Liberal Democrats.

Conservatives and Moderates are getting tired of the Elite Leftist Media manipulations of the past few years and of the most recent blatent agendas. Americans are getting angry enough to take action in the voting booth and the Democrats will LOSE seats in teh 2010 elections, ultimately losing complete control in 2012.

It took Jimmy Carter to bring about Ronald Reagan...Just like Jimmy, Obama will usher it another Great leader who will put politics aside and actually lead the nation.

We are progressively looking forward to this change!!!

Have a great night, enjoy the great Mavs win and relax, enjoy your ride...it will be rather short.

[Flacolaco]

Nobody seemed to care when Janett reno was calling President Bush "Mr." for years...

[chumdawg]

Conservative Republicans aren't anywhere near under the radar. They are out on the forefront, because they are the only face the Republican party has right now. Not that it's doing the GOP any good, but it is what it is.

The GOP is smart enough to rid themselves of this albatross, I expect. That's why you see the Utah guy coming out in favor of civil unions. Utah, no less! Smart Republicans are smart enough to know that you won't win office by spreading hate.

You should check your history, if you think Carter brought about Reagan. The Dems were going to win by default in '76, thanks to Watergate. But Reagan himself had been a force in '76 and was not that far from the nomination. In '80 he was actually behind the 8-ball until the debates, when he swung public sentiment a great deal in the last few weeks.

In other words, there could easily have been a set of circumstances where Reagan was never elected President. It was all down to chance and circumstance--much like this election was--and it was nothing at all like the country crying out for a leader like Reagan.

You ascribe far more to "movements" than is ever the case.

[92bDad]

Chum,

the sad part is that your Democrats are the ones championing the "Hate" speech. This will be their ultimate demise. Currently they are Drunk with Power and they are ignorant to the way they are presenting themselves.

Much like my writings can be that of a rambling arse, the Democrats are running over themselves to spread the hate they have for Americans and they are completely clueless to what they are doing.

It's rather naive to think Conservatives are a dieing segment, just as it is naive for conservatives to ignore the lengths that liberals will go through to push an agenda.

[Underdog]

Give him hell, Chum!

(he's harshing my buzz...)

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Chum,

the sad part is that your Democrats are the ones championing the "Hate" speech. This will be their ultimate demise. Currently they are Drunk with Power and they are ignorant to the way they are presenting themselves.

Much like my writings can be that of a rambling arse, the Democrats are running over themselves to spread the hate they have for Americans and they are completely clueless to what they are doing.

It's rather naive to think Conservatives are a dieing segment, just as it is naive for conservatives to ignore the lengths that liberals will go through to push an agenda.

The rub is that liberals only hate those who themselves hate. I hear this all the time from conservatives, that the liberals are full of hate. Yeah, you're damn right. They hate people who hate blacks. They hate people who hate gays. They hate people who discriminate against women and poor people and fags and niggers and whatever else you can come up with.

So the conservatives paint them as "haters," and in doing so they hide the real issues.

You can't keep hating these people, bro. You also can't keep hating the people who would like to see fewer guns on the street. You also can't keep hating the people who would like to see the US not torture folks. You also can't keep hating the people who don't much care for the US making war when it doesn't have good reason to.

All you are doing is marginalizing yourself. In other words, fewer and fewer people are giving a damn what you think.

[92bDad]

Here's the issue...Conservatives and Republicans don't hate anyone, except for the enemy.

We love people, regardless of cultural heritage...we don't discriminate, nor do we show favortism.

We disapprove of those who do hate and discriminate, but we don't provide special privelages for any group.

We believe in treating each other fairly and giving everyone the opportinity to succeed and excel in their lives.

Liberal hate 'Rednecks' - but don't dare call a liberal a racist for this attitude, or risk being vilified a terrorist.

How can Liberals hate so many people that choose to sacrifice and give their lives to defend the very freedoms we enjoy in this nation.

Recently there was an estimated 750,000 holding a peaceful protest with regards to taxes, and to include how the government is spending those taxes. No violence, actually it was a rather calm event providing plenty of respect for those with a different ideology...showing great tolerance. Yet it is these tolerant Americans who are being vilified by various leftist liberal entities.

These liberals are doing a great job of being shining examples of the type of tolerance they want in America...that my dear friend is what Americans are tired of and that is why Americans will vote the Liberals OUT in 2010!!!

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Here's the issue...Conservatives and Republicans don't hate anyone, except for the enemy.

That's precisely what I said.

[Mavdog]

let's hear from one of those who was on the front line working to break the enemy...he says the toture wasn't needed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Tortured Decision
By ALI SOUFAN
FOR seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.

It was the right decision to release these memos, as we need the truth to come out. This should not be a partisan matter, because it is in our national security interest to regain our position as the world’s foremost defenders of human rights. Just as important, releasing these memos enables us to begin the tricky process of finally bringing these terrorists to justice.

The debate after the release of these memos has centered on whether C.I.A. officials should be prosecuted for their role in harsh interrogation techniques. That would be a mistake. Almost all the agency officials I worked with on these issues were good people who felt as I did about the use of enhanced techniques: it is un-American, ineffective and harmful to our national security.

Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).

My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (It’s worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)

As we move forward, it’s important to not allow the torture issue to harm the reputation, and thus the effectiveness, of the C.I.A. The agency is essential to our national security. We must ensure that the mistakes behind the use of these techniques are never repeated. We’re making a good start: President Obama has limited interrogation techniques to the guidelines set in the Army Field Manual, and Leon Panetta, the C.I.A. director, says he has banned the use of contractors and secret overseas prisons for terrorism suspects (the so-called black sites). Just as important, we need to ensure that no new mistakes are made in the process of moving forward — a real danger right now.

Ali Soufan was an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005.

[Underdog]

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"



(I love how 92bDad is trying to defend a medieval torture technique in this day & age... What next - death by guillotine??)

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by Underdog

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

NOBODY!

"Amongst........ our weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms! Ow!

[bernardos70]

Ali Soufan is very unpatriotic! Did he just reveal our playbook to the enemy? I just don't think he is willing to go that far to save an American life, and therefore isn't qualified to work on the FBI. What a liberal agent! Next thing you know he'll come out in support of same-sex marriage! What a communist!

[alexamenos]

Should we torture Ashton Lundeby?

vid

Seriously...what if he's concealing some heinous plot? How shall we uncover it other than by torturing him?

The problem in this case is pretty basic -- maybe this 16 year old kid sent an obnoxious email, the virtual equivalent perhaps of pulling a fire alarm sans fire. Or maybe he really meant to plant a bomb....or maybe he's the victim of a little identity theft.

just wondering...should we torture the kid? Let's just assume that there's no physical evidence, and that he's presently denying involvement -- how can we know whether there is a serious plot behind the bomb threats without waterboarding the kid or tasing his testicles or something?

so who's for some torture?

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Should we torture Ashton Lundeby?

vid

Seriously...what if he's concealing some heinous plot? How shall we uncover it other than by torturing him?

The problem in this case is pretty basic -- maybe this 16 year old kid sent an obnoxious email, the virtual equivalent perhaps of pulling a fire alarm sans fire. Or maybe he really meant to plant a bomb....or maybe he's the victim of a little identity theft.

just wondering...should we torture the kid? Let's just assume that there's no physical evidence, and that he's presently denying involvement -- how can we know whether there is a serious plot behind the bomb threats without waterboarding the kid or tasing his testicles or something?

so who's for some torture?

Let's see, this happened in March...hmmm...nice to see Obama bringing 'Change' Now he is using the Patriot Act to arrest "Red Necks"

All humor aside, obviously we don't have the full story...On the surface this appears to be a gross injustice. I look at my own sons and can only imagine the insanity that would take place if this were to happen in our home.

Now, are there some details that we (The Public) don't have on this case...I tend to believe so.

Having said that, I believe the parents are entitled to have full disclosure from the U.S. Government...but they must be "Top Secret"...in other words that parent are not allowed to reveal this information to the public as a matter of National Security.

I tend to lean towards trusting and believing that those working to defend the Security of America don't act simply to act.

Could the kid be a victim and be set up? Yes that is possible and hopefully the Government is doing everything in its power to resolve this issue. That being said, it's not like they ripped some kid away at Gun Point from his family's arms in order to deport him to a communist nation!!!!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

That being said, it's not like they ripped some kid away at Gun Point from his family's arms in order to deport him to a communist nation!!!!

no, they just "ripped [this] kid away at gun point from his family's arms in order to" put him in jail, with no access to his family.

unreal. we all should understand how this act is being abused....due process has been denied, and any one of us could find ourselves in the same situation as this poor kid (and his family) is today.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, they just "ripped [this] kid away at gun point from his family's arms in order to" put him in jail, with no access to his family.

unreal. we all should understand how this act is being abused....due process has been denied, and any one of us could find ourselves in the same situation as this poor kid (and his family) is today.

We could also find ourselves in same situation and victims as those who have been killed by terrorist.

Something tells me there is another side to this story.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

We could also find ourselves in same situation and victims as those who have been killed by terrorist.

Something tells me there is another side to this story.

...and we could be hit by a truck going out of work tonight. ot hit by a crashing airplane as we sleep in our home tonight.

none of these unlikely scenarios, inc yours, justifies the withdrawl of citizen's rights allowed in the patriot act.

you know, if the kid wasn't denied due process we would know all the "sides to the story". the government would be required to go to a court and reveal the case against him, and the kid and his family would have the opportunity to address/challenge those charges.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

...and we could be hit by a truck going out of work tonight. ot hit by a crashing airplane as we sleep in our home tonight.

none of these unlikely scenarios, inc yours, justifies the withdrawl of citizen's rights allowed in the patriot act.

you know, if the kid wasn't denied due process we would know all the "sides to the story". the government would be required to go to a court and reveal the case against him, and the kid and his family would have the opportunity to address/challenge those charges.

The same due process that these terrorists are affording us. Let's not forget, this kid is somehow involved or they would not go after him.

Obviously I had more faith in the previous administration to track down terrorist, but I have to believe that the current administration is using this to defend this nation and that there is a legit threat.

We simply have a fundamental difference in terms of believing and trusting those who serve this nation.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

The same due process that these terrorists are affording us.

We didn't elect "the terrorists" so there's a slight error in the parallel you're trying to make...


[someone quote me so this genius can read what I typed!]

[mary]

Originally Posted by Underdog

We didn't elect "the terrorists" so there's a slight error in the parallel you're trying to make...


[someone quote me so this genius can read what I typed!]

As if....