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 ...
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.
Now THAT, I call evil.
I have nothing more to say to you.
Because if I DO say anything more, it’s going to get ugly.
Have a nice life.
So pull out your dictionary and learn the difference between 'surrender' and 'captured'. These thugs may have been captured, but they sure as hell didn't surrender.
Therefore waterboarding is perfectly moral under those circumstances.
You're willingness to allow innocent people to die because you're too weak to get your hands dirty is akin to Pilate washing his hands of Christ.
I suggest you do this. Go tell your wife that you'd let her or your children be tortured, raped, and murdered rather than waterboard an AQ terrorist.
I'll bet you better than even money your marriage will never be the same after that.
Care to take me up on it?
Bwahahahahaaaa!!!! I stopped taking you seriously the first time, sister.