Skip to comments.Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown: Use enhanced interrogation in attempted terrorism case
Posted on 01/04/2010 3:52:11 PM PST by Dayvester
Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown says a Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a U.S. airliner should be treated as an enemy combatant, transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and interrogated by any legal means...
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
“Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown: Use enhanced interrogation in attempted terrorism case”
I’m with him, but the voters in MA will likely go with another liberal if he keeps talking like that; they will once again be the Commonwealth of MassiveTwoShits...
I don’t know. William Weld started a string of Republican governorships by talking about reintroducing MA prisoners to “the joys of busting rocks”.
I heard today that to be able to do this that we have to declare war on AQ specifically, to be able to try them as enemy combattants.
This is the reason that the shoe bomber etc were tried in Fed Court.
Even though the Gitmo bunch were captured on the battlefield the Zeros are using this as a pretense to try the terrorists in Fed court.
Tell the candidate to make it an issue that the terrorists are at war with US, but we are NOT technically at war with them.
Nice way to protect the American people.
Governor is to Senator what rock is to peanut butter...
Is Scott Brown conservative or just a RINO? Also, is there a website where we can go and donate to his campaign? I’m Yahooing but haven’t found anything yet.
He’s worthy. Much better than we should have hope for in MA, yet he’s likable and running a good campaign.
I’d rather have a RINO from MA, than a liberal democrat. But I know I’m in the minority here on FR. Democrats are in favor over RINO’s here.
I was only asking if Scott Brown was a RINO because I know nothing about him or his political views. It would be great to take one of the 60 seats away from the Dims!
Take no prisoners and provide them no quarter.
RINOs virtually ARE democrats.
That's a lie.
'Another' liberal? Scott Brown is no liberal and is conservative on a number of issues and a good candidate considering we are talking about Massachusetts.
‘Another’ liberal? Scott Brown is no liberal and is conservative on a number of issues and a good candidate considering we are talking about Massachusetts.”
Another liberal...to replace Ded Kennedy (D-HELL)...didn’t read the whole post, didya?
Thanks for the link. I donated to Brown’s cause.
If those are the only choices, you have to go w/the one who will vote against HC and Cap & Tax.
Pray for America’s Freedom
Id rather have a RINO from MA, than a liberal democrat. But I know Im in the minority here on FR. Democrats are in favor over RINOs here.
Why are you conceding to a RINO when Brown is not even a RINO (as far as I can tell?)
It’s about principal and approach. If we concede to RINOs in blue states, we may as well allow the RATS to run unopposed because what will happen is that we’ll work, and work and work to get a RINO a bare chance at victory, and even then it isn’t likely. So instead of conceding to RINO better than RAT, first contend the RINO and run a Conservative - and get your message OUT there! Perhaps the breath of fresh air blowing across this nation will still include MA and my sorry state of WA...
I understand Coakley is on vacation. Nice.
PS: I read she was endorsed by NARL Pro-choice America today. I should think that might mean she’s given up on getting any support from Cardinal Seán Patrick O’Malley.
Even over and above "the Economy, Stupid", or "the Jobs, Stupid", once if and when "The Big One" hits by the terrorists on domestic US soil under Obama's watch in Election Year.
This guy is positioning very wisely. Not to mention, it is the right thing to assert, too.
We need to know specifically of Umar's handlers, his money route, his colleagues, and which other agents are out there and what and when they are going make a move.
Just say No to Martha!
principal = principle
“RINOs virtually ARE democrats.”
There ain’t no virtually about it.
It wasn't attempted terrorism. It was terrorism. The attack wasn't successful, thank G-d. Send the enemy combatant to Gitmo and hook electrodes to whatever parts he hasn't burned off.
You are not in the minority - it just seems that way sometimes the way these web forums play out
The Ft. Hood terrorist attack sure got buried in the MSM. Oh no, he was just a confused anti-war crusader, suffering from pre-deployment traumatic stress syndrome. The POS could have gone awol to Canada, but no...
Another terrorist attack on a U.S. military installation. Hell, was any air time spent on Ft. Dix or the recruiting station killing?
Will it take losing a school or a city before the total failure of this administration to keep Americans safe becomes apparent? Even then, the perp will have an attorney appointed if he cannot afford one... shades of Clinton trying to handle terrorism in court with the first WTC bombing... and we all know where that went.
I’ll send the below Op-ed to the Herald, but not much chance of it being published. Hopefully at least one person will be made uncomfortable.
Coercion and Stress Needed to Save Lives
Scott Brown speaks against the popular voices that label as torture legitimate steps a civilized society would take to protect itself from catastrophe. Those popular arguments cloud public awareness of past and continuing threats to our security threats without precedent in our nations history. Instead the country chooses to even begin criminalizing the acts of people who risked their own lives to counter enemies committed to butchery. Thereby career paths open for politically sensitive bureaucrats in Defense, Homeland Security, and State Departments who obfuscate perpetual failures by reinterpretation of events.
This current denunciation of supposed torture and torturers proceeds from believing that political capital and moral authority can be harvested at a safe distance by berating people who put themselves in harms way on our behalf. To regard such actions as criminal requires asymmetrical morality, undefiled by any perception of danger to ourselves or others. Placating those who covet such a luxurious, dilemma-free type of morality forces us to ignore military and intelligence professionals who face shrewd, ruthless enemies in a conflict fraught with frightening uncertainties.
Terrorists never display the civility required by the Geneva Conventions for prisoners of war. Terrorists are not insurgents or freedom fighters, and when they are captured, they certainly are not prisoners of war. These killers are not members of an organized resistance movement carrying arms openly, and they have no distinctive identifier. The Geneva Conventions describe terrorists as beyond the pale, because of their focus on slaughtering civilians.
The framers of the Geneva Conventions were parents and grandparents of the Greatest Generation, and held powerful positions throughout the darkest times of our world. Their words synthesize brutal, durable morality, properly understood, from actions within the ultimate bloody deluges of the 20th century. The people writing the conventions intended to isolate terrorist forces, provide them minimal protections, and allow their destruction with any overwhelming furies needed to crush their abominations.
Terrorists remain unresponsive to direct questioning and psychological gambits. Effective interrogation necessitates also applying all stress and coercion techniques the same techniques our military encounters in survival schools. Effective interrogation requires combining these techniques within a continually confused and uncertain environment.
If the only information obtained is a confession or an assumed desired answer, then incorrect questions have been asked. Intelligence acquired by these means remains as unreliable as that obtained from satellite surveillance or double agents. Independent verification still leaves intelligence officers lingering in a purgatory of distorted certitude with critical hazards only conquered through resolute leadership.
The supposed unique unreliability for information obtained from torture, however defined, is dispelled in contradicting Barack Obamas statement Churchill abhorred, and did not condone torture. Churchill historian Richard M. Langworth says, The word torture appears 156 times in my digital transcript of Churchills 15 million published words (books, articles, speeches, papers) and 35 million words about himbut not once in the subject context (Obamas speech). Other creditable WW II historians mention German spies caught by Great Britain were often allowed to choose between hanging and serving as double agents. Many chose to cooperate, and sixteen were still hanged after secret trials. The technique was effective for the D-Day deception, but would not coercion promising death be considered torture?
Rep. Peter DeFazio (Oregon) quoted to me 20 former Army interrogators saying that abuse and torture of prisoners and detainees should be avoided at all costs. I find that assertion disturbing, because on Sept. 11, 2001, we were prepared to shoot down any civilian airliner that did not land immediately, regardless of its crews assertions.
For DeFazio and similar popular advocates, U.S. victory must be defined wholly within a tranquil, self-created moral high ground, affirming an illusory national greatness. Islamic jihadists define victory as U.S. submission through elaborate and extensive slaughters. Jihadists win by their definition but according to the increasingly popular assertions of those who redefine and then condemn torture under any circumstances, we also win by our definition while perishing by thousands.
Theres an incredible moral disconnect here: We were prepared to kill our own citizens on 9/11, but were forbidden to subject terrorists to severe discomfort that might prevent extravagant murder and destruction. At what point in the application of chemical, biological and atomic weapons to our society must we protect the American people at all costs? At what point would we consider beginning a legitimate conversation about what might constitute torture? When does one consider extreme measures are warranted by the circumstances? Scott Browns statement raises these legitimate questions.
...providing aid and comfort to the enemy...
RINO or not, he is against the current Obamacare monstrosity in the Senate and vows to vote against it if elected.
Personally I don’t think he is a RINO, and he is definitely better than his Democrat opponent. She has come out FOR the Healthcare bill, and appears to be in lock-step with the Obummer administration. She is a Ted Kennedy political clone and Brown is not!
I'm not sure I understand your post.
I will vote for him because he will hold up Obama care. Nothing else he does would matter fore during the remainder of his term.
Here are Browns positions on issues. Considering this is Massachusetts he looks like a good candidate. http://bit.ly/8jLJ9x
Thanks for that link to Brown’s ideology. He’s a pure Rino and he would do better as a “blue dog” Democrat than as a Republican. We don’t support “health care for everyone” like Romney put into Mass. We don’t support abortion. We don’t buy into global warming. We want oil independence from the Middle East through using our own resources. We are not hatin’ oil like the Global warming watermelons.
Wind, solar, etc. is stupid and not ready for prime time as far as running our economy.
This guy is a loser and will hurt our cause.
Then Judge NaPOLITANO IS A LIAR?
I don't care who said it. The statement is false.
We do not need a formal Declaration of War against AQ to try them as unlawful combatants. The Geneva Conventions are quite clear on the subject. Google them up and read it for yourself.
Who do you refer to when you say “We”...
I’m familiar with Brown’s positions. We’re talking about MA here, not Oklahoma. He has said he would vote against HC and Cap N Trade. Not sure what you mean when you say he will hurt our cause. Stopping HC should be your cause. Stopping Cap N Trade should be your cause. He stops the 60th Harry Dingy vote. He is not ideal by any means and doesn’t reflect my conservative views. But in MA, I’ll take it.
I understand your idea. I don’t support Rinos anymore because I have seen what they do in abetting socialism and undermining conservatives in the GOP.
Arnie...McCain...Twinkletoes Graham...the Maine sluts...Spector... But you do your thing. I think you are much more in the minority than you think. Moderate Republicans...pup tent territory.
I don’t support RINO’s. Never again. After McCain, I said I would never vote for a RINO again. No Romney, No Huck, No Pawlenty... Gramnesty, etc... to many to mention.
I view MA as a separate situation. I don’t view myself in the minority when it comes to Brown. Many view his vote as a way to stop Reid in the Senate. The special election is only 2 yrs, then that Senate seat is up again.
You don’t know me. Please don’t assume who I am. I’m close 2 being right of Freep. But, I used to work at the US Senate; I understand the game of politics as well as anyone. Brown 4 two years to slow down Bambi’s policies and that seat is up again in 2012. In the meantime, we may have slowed down socialism.
I agree with you 100% about the crimes, corruption and harm of socialist policies, RINO tendencies and this destructive Administration. Its pathetic. RINO Republicans need to be voted out & I work from that framework.