Comments on: Democrats Fire and Fall Back in National Security Debate http://pjmedia.com/blog/democrats-fire-and-fall-back-in-national-security-debate/ Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:17:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: TomF http://pjmedia.com/blog/democrats-fire-and-fall-back-in-national-security-debate/#comment-264781 TomF Sat, 23 May 2009 07:04:19 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=56770#comment-264781 #33 Moogie: Thanks for the info. I am just a little confused. Does it mean that people brought in for questioning are being interviewed for some sort of job? I guess "questioning" is too harsh of a word as well for the P.C. crowd. Maybe we should just bring them in to "share" their feelings. That sounds even better. It removes any indication of aggression. In fact while we are at it, "terrorist" is too strong of a word. Maybe we could call them, "freedom fighters". #33 Moogie: Thanks for the info. I am just a little confused. Does it mean that people brought in for questioning are being interviewed for some sort of job? I guess “questioning” is too harsh of a word as well for the P.C. crowd. Maybe we should just bring them in to “share” their feelings. That sounds even better. It removes any indication of aggression. In fact while we are at it, “terrorist” is too strong of a word. Maybe we could call them, “freedom fighters”.

]]> By: Macko http://pjmedia.com/blog/democrats-fire-and-fall-back-in-national-security-debate/#comment-264195 Macko Fri, 22 May 2009 13:25:23 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=56770#comment-264195 puppet you are a puppet. You and the rest of the liberals that want to carry on about torture are puppets for the simple reason that this whole thing has nothing to do with torture. It's about demonizing republicans in the hopes of holding on to POWER. Nothing more, nothing less. puppet you are a puppet. You and the rest of the liberals that want to carry on about torture are puppets for the simple reason that this whole thing has nothing to do with torture. It’s about demonizing republicans in the hopes of holding on to POWER. Nothing more, nothing less.

]]> By: Jor-el http://pjmedia.com/blog/democrats-fire-and-fall-back-in-national-security-debate/#comment-263921 Jor-el Thu, 21 May 2009 23:24:03 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=56770#comment-263921 This is what you get when a political party- the Democrats, in this case- puts the Party's success ahead of the Country's success. Today's liberals and Democrats should hang their heads in shame. The party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy and Scoop Jackson has become the party of naive, foul-mouthed fools. This is what you get when a political party- the Democrats, in this case- puts the Party’s success ahead of the Country’s success.

Today’s liberals and Democrats should hang their heads in shame. The party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy and Scoop Jackson has become the party of naive, foul-mouthed fools.

]]> By: bobbcat http://pjmedia.com/blog/democrats-fire-and-fall-back-in-national-security-debate/#comment-263915 bobbcat Thu, 21 May 2009 23:02:54 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=56770#comment-263915 From the article: "Who imagined that Dick Cheney would pop up to remind Americans that the enhanced interrogation techniques worked?" Not many people, but it's certainly a good thing he stepped up to the plate. Please note no others in the Republican Party were uttering a peep of protest against this narcisisstic megalomaniac of a TOTUS we have to endure for the next 3-1/2 plus years. From the article: “Who imagined that Dick Cheney would pop up to remind Americans that the enhanced interrogation techniques worked?”

Not many people, but it’s certainly a good thing he stepped up to the plate. Please note no others in the Republican Party were uttering a peep of protest against this narcisisstic megalomaniac of a TOTUS we have to endure for the next 3-1/2 plus years.

]]> By: typos_R_us http://pjmedia.com/blog/democrats-fire-and-fall-back-in-national-security-debate/#comment-263896 typos_R_us Thu, 21 May 2009 22:00:50 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=56770#comment-263896 "Torture is against the law. Ronald Reagan signed an agreement in 1988 outlawing torture." Please provide a link. I am curious about the definition of 'torture' that is used; Is this it? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2137_v88/ai_6742034/ If so, what about this; "In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations, understandings, and declarations" Here is the actual text; http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm Including this; "1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "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." Note that last line. It seems that there are exceptions. As a final thought, ever hear of the Kellogg Briand pact? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg-Briand_Pact That pact outlawed war. It was signed a few years before WW2 started. Think the anit-torture pact will do any better? “Torture is against the law. Ronald Reagan signed an agreement in 1988 outlawing torture.”

Please provide a link. I am curious about the definition of ‘torture’ that is used;

Is this it?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2137_v88/ai_6742034/

If so, what about this;
“In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations, understandings, and declarations”

Here is the actual text;
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

Including this;
“1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “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.”

Note that last line. It seems that there are exceptions.

As a final thought, ever hear of the Kellogg Briand pact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg-Briand_Pact

That pact outlawed war. It was signed a few years before WW2 started. Think the anit-torture pact will do any better?

]]> By: dan http://pjmedia.com/blog/democrats-fire-and-fall-back-in-national-security-debate/#comment-263883 dan Thu, 21 May 2009 21:49:34 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=56770#comment-263883 Pastor of Muppets - I don't think you'll find many patriotic Americans who believe it is right to break laws or that it is just to inflict cruel treatment on a defenseless person in your custody. Nor do I think it counts as any kind of insight to constantly direct attention to such trivia. As you can see, even Obama doesn't know what to do with a person whom all intelligence demonstrates is an insensate Islamist capable of inflicting great physical and psychological damage on our nation but whom the rules of evidence would set free. This must give you pause, or I would think it would. Surely it is not difficult to infer that in this same nebulous area hovering just outside the pale of the law and civilized consideration - this state of nature halo which still irreducibly rings everything - there is room for judicious men charged with enormous responsibility staring A Great Secret in the face to inflict some modicum of pain over the generally established threshold in order to elicit that enormous, illegitimate, evil secret and thereby neutralize it. Consider also that these are highly controlled circumstances; no one advocates setting up a KGB apparatus. Nor does the employment of otherwise forbidden "techniques" risk or evidence incipient fascism. This is not about law. Everyone on this site can appreciate your points. But at some point our liberalities subvert our order, and if a little monster like "Abu" Zubaidah has to - basically - thrown under an ocean wave and have water go down the wrong pipe, which has happened to me about 1,000 times, then gee, it really isn't a close call and certainly isn't the titanic judiciary-rocking circusmtance your fellow Leninists make it out to be. Pastor of Muppets – I don’t think you’ll find many patriotic Americans who believe it is right to break laws or that it is just to inflict cruel treatment on a defenseless person in your custody. Nor do I think it counts as any kind of insight to constantly direct attention to such trivia.

As you can see, even Obama doesn’t know what to do with a person whom all intelligence demonstrates is an insensate Islamist capable of inflicting great physical and psychological damage on our nation but whom the rules of evidence would set free. This must give you pause, or I would think it would. Surely it is not difficult to infer that in this same nebulous area hovering just outside the pale of the law and civilized consideration – this state of nature halo which still irreducibly rings everything – there is room for judicious men charged with enormous responsibility staring A Great Secret in the face to inflict some modicum of pain over the generally established threshold in order to elicit that enormous, illegitimate, evil secret and thereby neutralize it.

Consider also that these are highly controlled circumstances; no one advocates setting up a KGB apparatus. Nor does the employment of otherwise forbidden “techniques” risk or evidence incipient fascism.

This is not about law. Everyone on this site can appreciate your points. But at some point our liberalities subvert our order, and if a little monster like “Abu” Zubaidah has to – basically – thrown under an ocean wave and have water go down the wrong pipe, which has happened to me about 1,000 times, then gee, it really isn’t a close call and certainly isn’t the titanic judiciary-rocking circusmtance your fellow Leninists make it out to be.

]]> By: Moogie http://pjmedia.com/blog/democrats-fire-and-fall-back-in-national-security-debate/#comment-263878 Moogie Thu, 21 May 2009 21:43:37 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=56770#comment-263878 #25 Tom F: I can tell you that in the world of law enforcement, "interrogation" is not the acceptable word. It's "interview." The P.C. crowd decided that the former word was too harsh. It elicited visions of a black and white film noir in which a suspect is bound to a chair in a small, dark room, while a bright light is aimed into his eyes, all while being grilled relentlessly by a couple of fedora wearing Bogarts, smoking unfiltered Camels, who would, without warning, punch the accused in the nose. Bottom line: liberals are not very skillful when it comes to self-defense. They are capitulating appeasers, apologising for trying to defend themselves in the first place, then laying down as the bad guys roll over them. #25 Tom F: I can tell you that in the world of law enforcement, “interrogation” is not the acceptable word. It’s “interview.”

The P.C. crowd decided that the former word was too harsh. It elicited visions of a black and white film noir in which a suspect is bound to a chair in a small, dark room, while a bright light is aimed into his eyes, all while being grilled relentlessly by a couple of fedora wearing Bogarts, smoking unfiltered Camels, who would, without warning, punch the accused in the nose.

Bottom line: liberals are not very skillful when it comes to self-defense. They are capitulating appeasers, apologising for trying to defend themselves in the first place, then laying down as the bad guys roll over them.

]]> By: Professor Guvinoff http://pjmedia.com/blog/democrats-fire-and-fall-back-in-national-security-debate/#comment-263852 Professor Guvinoff Thu, 21 May 2009 20:48:51 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=56770#comment-263852 In general, torpedoes are not engineered for the U-turn maneuver, but that does not make it impossible. This is what the wages of false accusations look like. In general, torpedoes are not engineered for the U-turn maneuver, but that does not make it impossible. This is what the wages of false accusations look like.

]]> By: JED http://pjmedia.com/blog/democrats-fire-and-fall-back-in-national-security-debate/#comment-263847 JED Thu, 21 May 2009 20:35:52 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=56770#comment-263847 This business about rules of war and torture are more assult on our senses from the code pink and lavender love dreamers of the New York Times and politically correct pushers. The higher moral authority reasonings sound outstanding from the pulpit but what do they have to do with the grim reality of killing? What are the rules of a knife fight? Rules such as argued here are more guide lines from behind the desk and not always recommended in the arena. The object of war is to kill the other person first before he would kill you. Why be confused on the issue? Is shooting in the head proper and shooting in the knee torture? Bad things happen in war and men/women revert to their darkest elements. The entire theater is ripe with atrocity. The ugly, savage, and bestial part of human nature has come out in every armed conflict. Andersonville prison was terrible, yet the president and the people forgave most of the perps. Ask the WWII guy if everyone was honorable. They were mostly forgiven even if they may have not completely forgiven themselves. War is bad business. They happen. Unless one feels that they are inferior and needs to die, it is better to kill the enemy and come back alive by any and all means possible. Less than that is to drive blindfolded and handcuffed. This business about rules of war and torture are more assult on our senses from the code pink and lavender love dreamers of the New York Times and politically correct pushers. The higher moral authority reasonings sound outstanding from the pulpit but what do they have to do with the grim reality of killing? What are the rules of a knife fight? Rules such as argued here are more guide lines from behind the desk and not always recommended in the arena.
The object of war is to kill the other person first before he would kill you. Why be confused on the issue? Is shooting in the head proper and shooting in the knee torture? Bad things happen in war and men/women revert to their darkest elements. The entire theater is ripe with atrocity. The ugly, savage, and bestial part of human nature has come out in every armed conflict.
Andersonville prison was terrible, yet the president and the people forgave most of the perps. Ask the WWII guy if everyone was honorable. They were mostly forgiven even if they may have not completely forgiven themselves.
War is bad business. They happen. Unless one feels that they are inferior and needs to die, it is better to kill the enemy and come back alive by any and all means possible. Less than that is to drive blindfolded and handcuffed.

]]> By: Scott http://pjmedia.com/blog/democrats-fire-and-fall-back-in-national-security-debate/#comment-263844 Scott Thu, 21 May 2009 20:19:34 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=56770#comment-263844 PoM said: "I don’t know how many times this has to be stated or before you folks get it: Torture is against the law. Ronald Reagan signed an agreement in 1988 outlawing torture." Well PoM I'll toss one of your heroes back at you. "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." Water boarding is NOT torture, the attention grasp is not torture, caterpillars are not torture. Shoving an electric cattle prod in someones rectum or applying it to their testicles is torture, crushing their fingers and toes with a hammer is torture. We water board our own during SERE training, get over it. PoM said: “I don’t know how many times this has to be stated or before you folks get it: Torture is against the law. Ronald Reagan signed an agreement in 1988 outlawing torture.”

Well PoM I’ll toss one of your heroes back at you.

“It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.”

Water boarding is NOT torture, the attention grasp is not torture, caterpillars are not torture. Shoving an electric cattle prod in someones rectum or applying it to their testicles is torture, crushing their fingers and toes with a hammer is torture. We water board our own during SERE training, get over it.

]]>