Skip to comments.Would Democrats Waterboard Atta?
Posted on 12/12/2007 4:42:37 PM PST by Kaslin
War On Terror: The question above, assuming we had 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta in custody on 9/10, is what those grilling the director of the CIA on interrogation techniques ought to be required to answer.
Democrats have created a climate where investigators are to follow some kind of Robert's Rules of Order and the interrogators are to be more fearful than those they interrogate. The next Khalid Sheik Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah can rest easy: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., is looking out for you.
Director Hayden outlawed the technique in 2006. But we didn't necessarily want the terrorists to know that or what other techniques, like being forced to listen to Rosie O'Donnell, might be employed. If we do not torture, we would still want captured jihadists to think we do, that we will do more than read them their Miranda rights and ask if they want an attorney.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
The only persons they would waterboard are GW Bush or Karl Rove.
No, but they’d waterboard Bush.
They’d send him a gift certificate for a day of pampering at a spa.
Sen LOUSE-enberg said he was against the death penalty for terrorists. Even Atta. So we see where they stand. Of course NJ saw fit to send Louse-enberg back to the Senate so you have to wonder what people there are thinking.
That’s a dumb question. They’d give him a parade.
Even Neville Chamberlain grew a brain. Same can’t be said for the ‘Rats...
If they wouldn’t even allow listening into his phone calls, they certainly would not be interested in waterboarding him.
We were too wimpy even to peek inside of “the 20th hijacker’s” laptop when he was arrested, which would have revealed the plan.
No. They’d insist on reading the guy his rights and providing him with a Quran’ and a prayer rug in his cell. Anything short of that and they’d scream that Bush had turned the country into a police state. Actually, they’re already doing that.
They would do anything if it meant power.
Remember the quote from Bin laden in 1998: “ What do I have to do to get this President(Clintoon) to understand We are at WAR with Him!”
The terrorists training for 9-11 spent hours in Simulators for 767’s etc. Those Simulators cost thousands of dollars per hour and He knew, at least on the day after TWA 800 that Terrorists planned to use passenger Jets as flyin missles.
Maybe we could offer any senator who wanted to an opportunity to interrogate a freshly captured al Queada one-on-one to protect them from any possible abuse.
You know, lock em in a room together until they reach an understanding...
Once again the Democrats side with the terrorists. And that is the real issue here, the fact that Democrats are worried about some discomfort for people who behead Americans. Ted Kennedy worries about terrorists who feel the sensation of drowning but he didn’t worry about drowning that girl for real. President Bush said “you are either with us or you are with the terrorists.” I wish he or some other Republicans would have the guts to say that Democrats are with the terrorists, because they sure as hell are. They have consistently come down on the side of the terrorists against our troops as well, but is anyone saying that? None dare call it treason but that’s exactly what it is.
John Gibson was talking a little about waterboarding on his radio show. Very interesting. Apparently it has been used on very few guys. When they do use it, the technique has made the enemy guys talk right quick. Many attacks have probably been prevented as a result of this. Yet to hear the morons and their “we have lost our civil liberties” nonsense, you would think America is worse than the old USSR and we are all prisoners.
Your refusal to discomfort a terrorist, when the lives of THOUSANDS of INNOCENT Americans were at stake, is completely and utterly IMMORAL.
How’s that for moral clarity?