Posted on 11/11/2007 11:57:59 PM PST by HAL9000
Then you write this - “According to the wording of the Leahy Law, the U.S. Government was authorized to ‘render’ suspected foreign nationals to the government of a foreign country, even when there was a possibility that they would be tortured, in ‘exceptional circumstances.’
So what you're telling us is that Leahy is OK with other countries torturing suspects for us (to their deaths if need be) but he's against us (US) using waterboarding because it's torture.
That's big time hypocritical. And Leahy is a big time hypocrite!
You have my vote!
BTTT
I couldn't agree more...and thank you for your post; it sums up the thoughts that are floating around in my head.
Pretending to "understand" why terrorists do what they do ultimately gets turned around into: somehow...it's our fault. terrorists behead someone? our fault. they fly planes into buildings or strap bombs onto their body? our fault.
It's like my 15-yr-old daughter....somehow everything is MY fault. got up late? mom's fault. didn't finish homework? mom's fault.
as if.
I don't care that there are terrorists who get tortured, by America or any other country, and that they feel pain and fear from the torture.
I don't care what their "causes" are, I don't care what their "grievances" are, I don't care about the "oppression" they "suffer" from Western civilization that exists only in their own minds. I don't care about their rage at Israel's existence, I don't care about the "occupation" of "Palestinian land" that is nothing but a fantasy in the medieval Muslim mind since there is no such thing as "Palestinians" and never has been and the only "land" they maybe can lay claim to are the Arab lands they slithered out of and into Israel. I don't care about their rage at our freedoms and way of life, and I don't care that they don't like it when we don't stone to death those they define as whores and infidels.
In fact, I can't say that I care about terrorists at all. I really don't.
I want them all dead, so dead that they almost never existed in the first place. I want them dead, and buried, and no longer a threat to peaceful, freedom-loving people who have progressed beyond the 9th century.
There have always been people like you who sympathize with mass murderers- there always have been and always will be. There were people in the 1930s who marched in the streets demanding that we leave Hitler alone, and there were those of your ilk who, all during the Cold War, demanded that we leave the Communists alone so they could expand into as many nations as possible and murder those who resisted being enslaved. But those people lost because the majority of decent people don't have mushy, love-struck feelings towards those who rampage across the land, murdering and enslaving.
They lost, and the modern-day killer-lovers and sympathizers who sit in freedom and relative safety and who identify with al Queda, and admire them, and support them will lose too.
The train left weeks ago and you are still standing at the station. Nobody cares about terrorists, and nobody cares if they are tortured and killed. Nobody except those living in the alternate universe of liberal leftism.
“Murtha will probably call for an investigation, Kucinich will hail it as “one more reason to impeach”, Pelosi & Reid will call it an example of a “flawed strategy” and a “culture of corruption”, Kennedy will eulogize the terrorist between belts of Famous Grouse, Obama will visit his gravesite “in solidarity”, Rosie O’Donnell will text a screed from her i-phone, Robert Redford and Rob Reiner will begin production on a movie about the man, and Hillary Clinton will put together a focus group to decide what to do!”
Brilliant!!!
You should care about the most effective strategy in winning the war against terrorism.
The wide consensus is that we are losing the war because of major mistakes:
such as not sending enough troops to capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora,
invading Iraq based on faulty intelligence,
and not catching the folks responsible for anthrax.
And the reason you should care about the most effective strategy in winning the war against terrorism is that lives are at stake.
To want to kill Bin Laden and Zawahiri — for example — hardly does much good when the US has proved so bad at getting the job done.
The reason to understand your enemy, for example, is that it is necessary for the correct profiling of the anthrax crimes which were always obviously US-based operatives supporting Al Qaeda.
http://www.anthraxanalqaeda.com
Can anyone tell me why pharmaceuticals (like amytal, brevital, I think) aren’t more effective in gaining information?
Most experts report that the information from torture is bad and unreliable.
I know some people that if you gave them a brownie with marijuana they would tell you anything you wanted to know.
Yeah - you and me both. I think my G-A-D is busted.
Yeah, ok, Mr. Paul. It’s our fault. Now can the rest of us go back to thanking God that He has allowed this perso to be removed from our midst and will not be responsible for doing to another person what he did to Mr. Pearl?
BTTT.
Diagnosis: Too much BS news.
Treatment: Put down the NY Times and try reading some REAL news for a change. We are NOT losing the war, and it is only Libs who believe we are.
Understanding your enemy for the purpose of true crime or intelligence analysis is an entirely different thing.
Given the ISI worked closely with Al Qaeda for years, the more important issue is transparency on such issues. The last thing we would want is witnesses who could shed light turning up dead before there is a public accounting.
For example, where is Aafia Siddiqui? She reportedly (according to an Assistant United States Attorney’s statement in court) was willing to participate in an anthrax attack if asked. She was picked up about the same week this guy was. What does Aafia have to say? Where is she? Does ISI have her? And does what she have to say implicate the ISI?
The AUSA’s statement was in connection with the trial of a textile importer’s son. This guy in the WSJ article was in the business of making textiles. The plot (Uzair Paracha) involved smuggling a chemical into the country, apparently to poison a reservoir serving New York City.
I only tried to stem the “rah, rah, yeah he’s dead” type comment because a lot of people follow the anthrax crimes on this board and I think this may be an important story, given that KSM came to be head of the cell weaponizing anthrax for use against US targets and this fellow and his connections might afford a portal to understanding. Given that we want Senator Leahy to catch a clue about who sent him the mailed anthrax, we don’t want to alienate him and his staffers so that they overlook the importance of this development. Folks tend to align their thoughts with their emotion.
Here’s the underlying article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119483721533389766.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Suspect in Pearl Murder Was Held,
Covertly Questioned Before Death
Rights Groups Say Torture
Of Detainee by Pakistan
Likely Led to His Demise
By JAY SOLOMON and STEVE LEVINE
November 12, 2007; Page A3
When I was learning to play golf, after I would shank one into the woods, I would turn to my father and ask what I did wrong. He would always say, “Why do you want to know? Do you want to do it again?”
Sometimes the knowledge of what went wrong does not aid in the solution. One must concentrate on doing it right.
In the case of doing it right, that is not going to entail abandoning the Middle East and the World’s oil supply, it is not going to include regeging on our support of Israel, it is not going to include dismantling US power worldwide, and it is not going to include restoring Spain to the Caliphate. So why should we be concerned too much about what the Muslims want?
Sorry — the guy deserved to die. I just can’t get past that to the other. And I guess I have a hard time wanting to inspect the criminal. It just seems like the only people who get on the “why did he do it” bandwagon are libs, and they will immediately turn around and say “it’s OUR fault.” (of course! *barf*) I’m sorry if I lumped you in with that crown undeservedly.
I guess I should have just stuck to the facts that I find significant:
We have not captured or killed Bin Laden.
We have not captured or killed Zawahiri.
We have not captured or killed the anthrax mailer.
Al Qaeda has more supporters than it did and Al Qaeda now has regular access to the media (something it never did). Zawahiri thinks that at least half the battle is in the media. And so thinking public relations would help. He certainly is.
Had we sent sufficient troops to Tora Bora, we might have avoided much of the mess of the last half decade.
Solving every “crime” is not a prequisite for winning the War on Terror. Making misbehavior so costly that the other side eventually chooses peace is the key. If we rounded up every individual responsible for the Anthrax attacks and 9/11, the war would not be over, much as you might wish that it would be.
Oh — and as for your assertion that we are “losing this war” I stand firm. That’s pure BS handfed by the enemedia. They did it in Vietnam, when Uncle Walter tore his glasses off his face and opined “what the hell is going on over there?” and they are trying to do it again. He was referring to the Tet offensive. According to accounts by the NVA Gen. Giap, the bad guys were preparing to surrender. Then they heard what our MEDIA and the PROTESTERS were doing in OUR COUNTRY and they got a second wind. Let me restate — in 1968 after the Tet Offensive the bad guys were ready to GIVE UP, but OUR MEDIA gave them the hope to keep going. Please, do not aid and abet the enemedia in THIS war by continuing the LIE that we are losing.
The most effective strategy to win the war against terrorism is to kill as many terrorists as we can, before they kill us, not worry about their "rights" (that are bestowed upon them by leftists), or worry about "what kind of a nation" it makes us by killing terrorists before they can carry out another 9/11 or, this time, wipe out an entire city with a suitcase nuke.
Bottom line: if they're dead, they can't kill us and they can't commit terrorism. It's not nuanced, and it's not deep, but it works.
such as not sending enough troops to capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora...
I have seen no conclusive proof, since December, 2001 when the attack on Tora Bora was carried out, that Osama bin Laden is still alive. And pieced-together videos, made with someone about whom the argument can be made very convincingly that he is a stand-in for bin Laden posing as bin Laden, don't count.
And I believe that it's not outside the realm of possibility that the feds know bin Laden is dead but won't say it out loud because all the idiots out there who had eight years worth of chances with their Caligula president to fight terrorism and did nothing, will be crowing that since bin Laden is dead, the war on terror is over and we can quit.
If he is dead, which I firmly believe that he is, there will be no official acknowledgment of that fact for years.
invading Iraq based on faulty intelligence
You'll have to do better than that. That is an long-discredited, leftist talking point that, when dissected, reveals that the "faulty intelligence" was believed to be true by many foreign governments, democrats in the congress as far back as 1998, the UN, and, gasp, choke, the Clinton administration!!!!
You libs are upset that President Bush acted on the intelligence and took the fight to the terrorists instead of assuming a fetal position in a corner like your boy did and letting al Queda continue to slaughter innocent Americans and I understand how you feel, but the reality is that a Republican acted to protect Americans and democrats did not. And they never, ever will.
You're PO'd that there is now a clear line of distinction between how democrats deal with terrorism, which gives birth to more and more killings, and how Republicans deal with terrorism, which results in dead terrorists and no attacks for six years. And what's worse for democrats, Americans who will be voting for the next president in 2008 have lived to see that distinction.
and not catching the folks responsible for anthrax.
And how do you know that? Do you have some "intelligence" that nobody else has, that very well could be "faulty", that the "folks responsible for anthrax" are alive and well?
We've killed thousands of terrorists. How do you know that the "folks responsible for anthrax" aren't dead? How do you know they haven't been caught? Where do you get your information? The DailyKos?
And the reason you should care about the most effective strategy in winning the war against terrorism is that lives are at stake.
We tried it your way: protecting terrorists' "rights" to be left alone to grow in number and commit more and more murder; refusing to take custody of bin Laden when we had three chances to because "there wasn't enough evidence"; treating terrorist acts of war like the first World Trade Center attack as mere acts of common criminals; of erecting a wall of separation between the FBI and intelligence agencies to prevent them from sharing information on terrorists in the country- the list of failures of your party goes on and on and on.
The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If your girl Hillary wins the White House, we'll go back to the failed, terrorist-rewarding "strategy" of leaving them strictly alone. In the meantime, we'll continue to hunt them down and kill them, and, much to your dismay, listen in on their phone conversations.
To want to kill Bin Laden and Zawahiri — for example — hardly does much good when the US has proved so bad at getting the job done.
Again, you can offer no proof that bin Laden is alive. And repeating a leftist talking point is not the same as stating a fact.
That leads me to my previous point: not only did your boy's failures to deal with terrorism in a serious, realistic way lead to 9/11, but he had three chances to take bin Laden and refused each time.
You people can never escape that fact. You can try to rewrite history until a new world is built, and it won't change a thing. I can pretty much guarantee you that if any Republican president had the opportunity to take custody of a terrorist, he would certainly not refuse that chance.
Your boy's criminal negligence that resulted in the deaths of 3000 innocent American citizens is the legacy of the Clinton administration. And there is no escape from that fact for you and everyone who thinks like you.
The reason to understand your enemy, for example, is that it is necessary for the correct profiling of the anthrax crimes which were always obviously US-based operatives supporting Al Qaeda.
I already understand al Queda and I want them dead. End of story.
Politics are immaterial to me.
I just want anthrax solved.
And politics has only served to undermine that goal.
Liberals are seriously confused on the subject and intemperate comments by busy surfing Freepers on the subject only encourage them to remain so.
Bottom-line: what is at stake is an aerosolized anthrax attack on NYC and DC that would change the course of Western Civilization. So some serious analysis is required. Not bullshit like Ed spews about how it is a FACT that a first grader wrote the letters. Not liberal politically-motivated garbage like how a biodefense insider like Hatfill was trying to sound an alarm. Indeed, the theory was invented and first publicized by a lawyer/professor working for militant clients abroad. And we don’t need garbage “lone-wolf” profiling such as came out of the FBI’s Quantico from people who apparently did not know jack about religious fundamentalism or the the open source intelligence about Zawahiri’s anthrax weaponization program or the US-based infrastructure supporting the Salafist jihadis.
What is needed is just well-researched analysis that demonstrates that the anthrax letters were intended as a threat and warning — by religious zealots who deemed that the koran required a warning and public relations-minded tactitians like Zawahiri who wanted to win the support of muslims worldwide.
Only if we catch the anthrax operatives will be be able to best ensure that the threat is neutralized. Which is what every true patriotic American should want. And while I wouldn’t ever let my daughter marry a Freeper, I know you all to be patriotic.
Suggestions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.