Rush Limbaugh thinks McCain's bill is........

[Strk]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: zendari
As for the interrogation techniques, from the previous link:
"At congressional hearings last July, Southern Command's Gen. Bantz Craddock testified that as a result of the use of some of these techniques, the formerly defiant al-Qatani had "provided insights" into Al Qaeda's planning for 9/11"

So it looks like they got something. We should stop typing their hands in beurocratic bull and let them properly do their jobs. :thumbsup:

So how do you separate the truths from the lies? It's a useless means of interrogation. When John McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese, instead of giving the names of other pilots, he gave them the players of the Green Bay Packers.

These are people who aren't afraid of death... and if they have to lie to stop the pain or torture for a few hours or days, they will.

I am sure intelligence agents have though of that and have a solution for the problem.

Some of our key intelligence regarding WMD in Iraq was obtained under those situations. We all know how great that turned to be.

The 9/11 link as well, I believe.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: zendari
As for the interrogation techniques, from the previous link:
"At congressional hearings last July, Southern Command's Gen. Bantz Craddock testified that as a result of the use of some of these techniques, the formerly defiant al-Qatani had "provided insights" into Al Qaeda's planning for 9/11"

So it looks like they got something. We should stop typing their hands in beurocratic bull and let them properly do their jobs. :thumbsup:

So how do you separate the truths from the lies? It's a useless means of interrogation. When John McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese, instead of giving the names of other pilots, he gave them the players of the Green Bay Packers.

These are people who aren't afraid of death... and if they have to lie to stop the pain or torture for a few hours or days, they will.

I am sure intelligence agents have though of that and have a solution for the problem.

Some of our key intelligence regarding WMD in Iraq was obtained under those situations. We all know how great that turned to be.

I hadn't thought of that...but it's a good argument for not turning even more authority over to the executive branch of the government. Whoever was at fault for that disaster, whether it was the agents, analysts or the guys in chaarge, I'm not sure they've justified having MORE power if they aren't able to do their jobs with the power they already have.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge
ZENDARI

I think that we should all try what we advocate. For example, I am for pre-marital sex. I've tried it, and it's good. I am also for privacy. Tried it, it's good. If you want to advocate torture, you should really try it.

I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

Yeah, I'm sure Saddam said much the same thing in his younger days. Ahhhh, and we know where that leads. But hey, you're better than Saddam because **insert lame excuse for torture here while waving the flag really hard**

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge
ZENDARI

I think that we should all try what we advocate. For example, I am for pre-marital sex. I've tried it, and it's good. I am also for privacy. Tried it, it's good. If you want to advocate torture, you should really try it.

I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

Yeah, I'm sure Saddam said much the same thing in his younger days. Ahhhh, and we know where that leads. But hey, you're better than Saddam because **insert lame excuse for torture here while waving the flag really hard**

I always liked what my Dad says about the means justifying the ends, there are no ends, only means.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge
ZENDARI

I think that we should all try what we advocate. For example, I am for pre-marital sex. I've tried it, and it's good. I am also for privacy. Tried it, it's good. If you want to advocate torture, you should really try it.

I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

Yeah, I'm sure Saddam said much the same thing in his younger days. Ahhhh, and we know where that leads. But hey, you're better than Saddam because **insert lame excuse for torture here while waving the flag really hard**

Saddam couldn't have been that bad; the liberals here think it was a bad idea to remove him from power.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: zendari
Saddam couldn't have been that bad; the liberals here think it was a bad idea to remove him from power.

It was a bad idea to remove him from power without any real plan to win the peace. Who ends up paying for that? The soldiers and the taxpayers.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge
ZENDARI

I think that we should all try what we advocate. For example, I am for pre-marital sex. I've tried it, and it's good. I am also for privacy. Tried it, it's good. If you want to advocate torture, you should really try it.

I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

Yeah, I'm sure Saddam said much the same thing in his younger days. Ahhhh, and we know where that leads. But hey, you're better than Saddam because **insert lame excuse for torture here while waving the flag really hard**

Saddam couldn't have been that bad; the liberals here think it was a bad idea to remove him from power.

I think the WAY we removed him from power was a bad one. We went in with a totally unrealistic expectation of the aftermath of the invasion and with no plan to deal with the problems. Well, plans existed, but they were widely ignored. I have no problem with the concept of Saddam not being in power, but our plan needed a lot more work.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge
ZENDARI

I think that we should all try what we advocate. For example, I am for pre-marital sex. I've tried it, and it's good. I am also for privacy. Tried it, it's good. If you want to advocate torture, you should really try it.

I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

Yeah, I'm sure Saddam said much the same thing in his younger days. Ahhhh, and we know where that leads. But hey, you're better than Saddam because **insert lame excuse for torture here while waving the flag really hard**

Saddam couldn't have been that bad; the liberals here think it was a bad idea to remove him from power.

I think the WAY we removed him from power was a bad one. We went in with a totally unrealistic expectation of the aftermath of the invasion and with no plan to deal with the problems. Well, plans existed, but they were widely ignored. I have no problem with the concept of Saddam not being in power, but our plan needed a lot more work.

I still remember Rumsfeld on CNN's Crossfire and a caller asked Rumsfeld what are the plans to keep the peace in Iraq after the US removes Saddam... His reponse pretty much was... Stop being an "Armchair politican" and leave the real thinking to the pros...

I look at the situation now and I would have to say there was never any plans after we remove Saddam... I think the only thing was thought of was Iraq was going to be like a bunch of teletubbies running around in the sand.

 

[dahunan]

Rush is just Doing the Lords Work

Why can't he just jump in front of a train already

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: zendari

Then I suppose they get another round of torture.

Then they'll lie again, then a terrorist act will occur, then we'll find out the "terrorist" knew nothing and is probably innocent. "If" may be a small word, but it's a huge assumption. How many people need to be erroneously tortured based on the assumption they know something before you see that Torture is unacceptable?

If alternative interrogation is so bad why did it yield results in the link above?

Why would it yield the results of Abu Graib if it's so right?

It probably wasnt the right technique for the situation. Nothing is 100%.

Can I probably not use the right technique and shove a large police baton in your butt and then claim it wasn't really torture .. that it was just a high school prank ... like your buddy Rush said it was?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge
ZENDARI

I think that we should all try what we advocate. For example, I am for pre-marital sex. I've tried it, and it's good. I am also for privacy. Tried it, it's good. If you want to advocate torture, you should really try it.

I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

Yeah, I'm sure Saddam said much the same thing in his younger days. Ahhhh, and we know where that leads. But hey, you're better than Saddam because **insert lame excuse for torture here while waving the flag really hard**

Saddam couldn't have been that bad; the liberals here think it was a bad idea to remove him from power.

I think the WAY we removed him from power was a bad one. We went in with a totally unrealistic expectation of the aftermath of the invasion and with no plan to deal with the problems. Well, plans existed, but they were widely ignored. I have no problem with the concept of Saddam not being in power, but our plan needed a lot more work.

We should have removed Saddam the same way we did Hirohito.. but our leaders just aren't that intelligent anymore

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge
ZENDARI

I think that we should all try what we advocate. For example, I am for pre-marital sex. I've tried it, and it's good. I am also for privacy. Tried it, it's good. If you want to advocate torture, you should really try it.

I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

Yeah, I'm sure Saddam said much the same thing in his younger days. Ahhhh, and we know where that leads. But hey, you're better than Saddam because **insert lame excuse for torture here while waving the flag really hard**

Saddam couldn't have been that bad; the liberals here think it was a bad idea to remove him from power.

I think the WAY we removed him from power was a bad one. We went in with a totally unrealistic expectation of the aftermath of the invasion and with no plan to deal with the problems. Well, plans existed, but they were widely ignored. I have no problem with the concept of Saddam not being in power, but our plan needed a lot more work.

We should have removed Saddam the same way we did Hirohito.. but our leaders just aren't that intelligent anymore

The irony is that we have even better analysts and thinkers than we did back then, some of the post-war plans produced by various experts prior to the invasion of Iraq have a large level of detail and actually predicted a lot of the problems we face today, and suggesting solutions that we could have implemented from the moment the first bomb dropped. Of course such plans are useless if the people at the top don't feel the need to listen to them.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: zendari
I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

even if the "information" you get is more likely to be bullsh!t than truth? When tortured peope tell yu want you want them to tell you, even if its not true.

Then I suppose they get another round of torture.

:roll:

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge
ZENDARI

I think that we should all try what we advocate. For example, I am for pre-marital sex. I've tried it, and it's good. I am also for privacy. Tried it, it's good. If you want to advocate torture, you should really try it.

I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

Yeah, I'm sure Saddam said much the same thing in his younger days. Ahhhh, and we know where that leads. But hey, you're better than Saddam because **insert lame excuse for torture here while waving the flag really hard**

Saddam couldn't have been that bad; the liberals here think it was a bad idea to remove him from power.

I think the WAY we removed him from power was a bad one. We went in with a totally unrealistic expectation of the aftermath of the invasion and with no plan to deal with the problems. Well, plans existed, but they were widely ignored. I have no problem with the concept of Saddam not being in power, but our plan needed a lot more work.

We should have removed Saddam the same way we did Hirohito.. but our leaders just aren't that intelligent anymore

The irony is that we have even better analysts and thinkers than we did back then, some of the post-war plans produced by various experts prior to the invasion of Iraq have a large level of detail and actually predicted a lot of the problems we face today, and suggesting solutions that we could have implemented from the moment the first bomb dropped. Of course such plans are useless if the people at the top don't feel the need to listen to them.

Things that make you hmmmm... I sometimes wonder if they never wanted things to go smoothly ... keep us there for a long long time

 

[Lemon law]

I don't have to jump off the top of tall building to know I will go splat on the sidewalk with likely fatal results.

I don't really have to be a super brain to realise that torturing anyone and really angering 1.4 billion Moslems
while offending civilized people is a profoundly stupid idea.

I don't have to be a super brain to realise that that much of the damage to our image is already done.

I don't have to be a super brain to realise that this bill is just a very small start in repairing that image.

To finish the job we must hustle those people who hatched it off to the Hague where they have proper international standing to deal with our morally bankrupt. No matter who they are. But Bush and Cheney would be the
the persons most likely to have that image restorative powers.--and don't forget Alberto Gonzales, our AG.