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?
You display an astounding lack of moral clarity with such a statement. It's the attitude of the lowest sort of moral reprobate to allow innocents to be murdered without doing whatever is necessary to stop it.
If it were your wife or children in imminent danger of being murdered by these savages you'd clamp the electrodes on some AQ goons testicles yourself.
Anyone who says anything different is a liar or a soulless monster.
Wouldn’t want you around if I needed a hand.
No. They would give him a preferred seat at the next DNC national meeting.
“I can just see the dems saying to Atta. Oh pretty please tell us what we want to know.”
Willie Horton moment. Would love the question to be asked of Hillary and Thompson. Would you have waterboarded Atta to get information that would have prevented 9/11.
How much worse could waterboarding be than listening to Reid and Pelosi...torture to me!
Only if he was a Christian Fundamentalist, a legitment gun owner, or a Conservative Republican.
The above named are the Democrat’s enemies. Not the muslims that want to kill everyone else in the world.
That is a debate question that will never be asked.
Rhey’d get him a suite at the local Hilton, as befits his usual lifestyle as one of the wealthy america haters that he is...and who knows how many tens of thousands of americans would have died because of it.
They would gladly have waterboarded Scooter Libby to get dirt on Bush.
What is the torture? Psychological abuse?
No more sleep deprevation, loud music etc.
The psyops at Waco were used on US citizens without much outrage. The military tanks were used to crunch of graves of family members to the horror of the people inside.
We can all agree that is was wrong to shoot federal agents (and it was wrong for the federal agents to kick the crap out of the media team they invited to cover their raid).
So what is “torture” and have we engaged in it?
There are some who say that the nations under influence of the Reagan administration used torture of the type like slicing a finger open and pulling the skin back and then eventually cutting off. Waterboarding is a world away from that sort of brutality.
And what is a license to kill? Do agents have this authority or should all hits be executions by the State after a long and public trial on US soil?
We should be offering the jihadists at Gitmo more than just korans. We should be informing them that they no longer are living under an Islamic supremacist environment and are free to read ANY religious texts.
No, you may not deliberately deprive of sleep or food or water etc, unresisting men entirely under your power for the purpose of coercing them to do your bidding. I really don't care what you can or can't extract from them, extraction is not my concern in the matter at all.
As for your silly Waco example, I wouldn't bring up notorious excesses of tyranny against fellow citizens - it is poor salesmenship and reminds people that the government cannot even be trusted to direct its attentions to people who deserve it or cases that actually matter for anything. But no, loudspeakers in that case were not the same as torturing people under one's full control, because it was not directed at men under control. It was a stupid and ineffective, childish and inane tactic, but it was tactics against still resisting men, not deliberate cruelty to those who had already surrendered.
Have we engaged in torture? By all press accounts, yes, in at least several high profile cases. Have we stopped doing so? I hope so. Do we occasionally wink at it being committed by allies, and connive at it, handing people over to torture? Probably. Which is a crime against humanity if it happens.
Also, what is this "we" bit? I point out that no possible claim on my loyalty can run in favor of a torturer, or of anyone who endorses or defends it.
The thing I have against terrorists is that they kill innocent people indiscriminately. Now, make all the people they kill no longer innocent, and the just objection to their conduct would disappear. That way lies sorrow. And indeed, such moral contagion is one of the first things to fear from terrorists.
As for killing enemies, no problem. Killing an actively resisting combatant is not torture of any kind. The objection to torture is not at all that it hurts, or any regard for the enemies that it hurts. It is, instead, a strong aversion to putting up with the fiends from the pit who perform it - and enjoy it thoroughly. Human experience has taught mankind that men who get that particular brainstorm and get at all used to it, exit the human race for a lower region, and do not return.
If death comes to any such, by any passing circumstance or accident, God himself would call it justice. So if our society and state wish to deserve allegiance from any actual human beings, as opposed to twisted damned things from the pits of hell, they should avoid the practice like a plague.
Is that clear enough for you, or do you want a diagram?
Not giving a lick whether you are damnable, only whether you are alive, is not a mark of a souled anything, but the definition of "soulless".
Given the chance, Rats would drool to “draw and quarter” our President.
Quite clear. Food for thought.
And please, don't try this on your siblings.
I suggest you learn the difference between "surrender" and "capture".
Total red herring, and you know it. I honestly don't know what you're doing here at FR. You need to go join your buddies in the "blame America first, we're all guilty, I don't care whether a few thousand innocent American schoolchildren die or not, *I'm* opposing the waterboarding of the eeeevil Bush regime" crowd over at DU. They miss you.
There are plenty of innocent Americans in the matter - they all disagree with you about torture. And you just aren't one of them.
As for the Bush adminstration, I am willing to be corrected, but my understanding is that they agreed to McCain and Warner's objections, enough to suspend such things in practice. Which is what was wanted.
I also suggest you review the history of France in Algeria and how exactly they lost that war. You will find political divisions on the home front the decisive field, and that torture hurt on that decisive front, in ways that ultimately outweighed any good it did on the front lines.
But such practicalities aside, you have a more basic lesson to learn. You can't get the devil working for your side. He's got his own.
Fools. Dangerous fools.
Why don’t the Demo-rats just publish all of our national secrets in the New York Slimes, the Boston Glob and the Washington Putz and get it over with. That seems to be their intent.
It's easy but logically invalid for IBD to invoke Mohammed Atta as they did, because we already know what happened later.
The real case for or against waterboarding has to be made for cases when you don't already know what happened, and that's a lot tougher to precisely define.
Waterboarding -- or any type of torture -- is at best one of those "never say never" cases, but it also should not be a standard practice.
Rather than pulling the sob-sister act, IBD should be talking about the conditions under which physical coercion would be justified.
Under what specific conditions would we be justified in waterboarding Atta on 9/10? You can't do it for vague reasons -- you need to know something pretty specific before you even start. What would be the threshold of knowledge required?
This lame 3rd-grade tripe is the surest sign of a FReeper who hasn't got a rational point to make.
No, actually, it's a sure sign of a FReeper who isn't going to try and reason with a "3rd-grader" who wouldn't do whatever kind of interrogation was needed of a mass-murdering, throat-slitting terrorist in order to protect thousands of innocent Americans (including genuine innocent 3rd-grade children) -- preferring instead to ask the incredibly STUPID question (of said innocent Americans, including third-graders and four-year-olds), "If they approve of torture, what exactly is innocent about them?"
Go back to DU. I'm done with you.
Actually, based on your previous "answer," I'm tempted to give you the Levin treatment. And I would be completely justified in doing so.
The Marxist’s would certainly approve of waterboarding Bush, Cheney and Rove.