I. WHAT IS WATERBOARDING? WHAT DOES IT DO TO THE PERSON WHO UNDERGOES IT?
ANSWER: WATERBOARDING
1. INFLICTS NO SHORT OR LONG TERM INJURIES
2. IT DOES NOT CAUSE EXTREME OR SEVERE PAIN
3. IT MERELY MAKES DETAINEES FELL LIKE THEY ARE DROWING FOR AT MAXIMUM AROUND 3-5 SECONDS AND RESULTS IN USUALLY 1-3 SECONDS OF UNPLEASENTNESS AT THE FIRST MOMENT ONE FEELS THEY CAN'T BREATHE THEY EITHER YELL THE AGREED UPON CODE WORD OR DROP AND/OR THROW THE "DEAD MANS GRIP" WHICH ARE TWO TINTY BARS THAT ONE GRIPS IN BOTH HANDS TO THE FLOOR AT EITHER OF WHICH POINTS THE WATERBOARDING IMMEDIATELY ENDS.
Here is a video of the shockingly un gruesome method of extracting life saving information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7u-Wk1aU-E
II. HOW MANY TERORRIST DETAINEES AT GAUNTANMO BAY WHERE WATERBOARDED?
ANSWER: All of 3 terrorist murderers we're waterboarded the entire time at Gitmo in 7 years.
III. WHO WHERE THE TERORRIST DETAINEES THAT WHERE WATERBOARDED?
ANSWER: The first ever detainee to be waterboarded at Gitmo was the number 3 guy in Al-Quada the terrorist organization which had just attacked the United States and killed thousands of innocent civilians. In fact, all 3 where high up in Al-quada. Another detainee who was waterboarded was Khalid Sheik Muhommad, the confessed mastermind of the murder of 3 thousand plus civilians on 9/11/2001. (QUESTION: Does a unprovoked, delibrate murderer of 3,000 innocent civilians not deserve to be hung let alone to exsperience 3 seconds of temporary unpleasentness in order to not punish him but to extract information about future attacks that would save lives?)
IIII. IS IT TRUE THAT WATERBOARDING IS TRUE THAT WATERBOARDING IS A VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS PRINCIPAL SIGNATORY?
ANSWER: Absolutely not. The Geneva Convention, which came about after WW2 in order to prevent the toture of soliders of nation states held capitive in a war does not apply to Khalid Sheik Muhhomad or any one ever detained at Gitmo for Al-Quada terrorists are not solidiers of a nation state being held behind enemy lines in a war between two nation states. (And even If they where it's debated where waterboarding would count as toture under the Conventions but thats irrelevent because they aren't. By the way, the conventions did not apply to spies of a nation state behind enemy lines or solidiers who didn't play by the rules of war. For instance, German solidiers who put on US solidiers uniforms during WW2 when caught behind the enemy lines trying to collect information where immediatly executed and no one thought that a violation of the Geneva Convention because the German officers had broken basic rules of war. In the same way, the Geneva Convention didn't apply to any solidier who broke the basic rules of war (of which it was apart), if you delibratly slughter civilians or solidiers waving a white flag or a group of red cross medics, you weren't going to receive the benefits of the basic rules of war that you defied. The Conventions applied to solidiers of a nation at war who where simply captured the usual way not captured along killing a child in the other nations uniform, etc.. Bin Laden broke the basic rules by delibratly targeting civilians.)
WHY DID THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS ONLY APPLY ITSELF TO SOLDIERS OF A NATION CAPTURED IN A WAR RATHER THAN SOMEONE LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN IF HE WHERE CAPTURED?
Because it really would be cruel and unjust to waterboard, or even just make stand for 24 hours a, say, captured 18 year old German solidier who A. Didn't nesscarily go to war by choice for they would be jailed or executed for treason if they evaded the draft or deserted and B. They didn't kill civilians, they where commanded to, shoot at other solidiers in a war they didn't start of choose to fight quite often and 3. they were solidiers of a nation state at war and finally 4. A rank and file officer or private captured behind enemy lines has almost never any life saving, war winning information that would be at all worth waterboarding them for while OSAMA BIN LADEN and KHALID SHEIK MUHOMMAD and MUHOMMAD ATTA and all 3 of those terrorists the United States waterboarded to try to get life saving information that did save thousands of lives and prevented attacks, all 1. weren't forced to slaughter 3,000 innocent civilians, which they did delibratly, on September 11th, 2001 and 2. They where not the solidiers of any nation state (and weren't in a official war between two or more nations) 3. They weren't Americans and weren't entitled to Meridanda rights or a lawyer present and all the rest inturn 4. They, such as the number 3 man in Al-Quada or the mastermind of 9-11, had valuable if not life saving information that they weren''t going to give up by asking nicely and didn't give up when not coarsed by waterboarding and other techniques.
HOW DOES ONE DEFINE TOTURE?
One common sense of definition of toture is that if your willing to undergo a interrogation techinque voluntarily just to see what its like, or just so you can be a US Marine or Navy SEAL or just to write a article on a technique for your monthly column: it isn't toture.
If I ask you would if you'd like to try getting your finger nails pulled or your hand bashed with a being slamming hammer would you try it? Ofcourse not.
If I said that you could only become Navy Seal if you let your arm be cut off without anistetic would you do it anyways? Not a Chance
If I said that if you had your teech pulled out with out novacaine your could write about the exsperience in Vanity Fair, would you do it? No.
Now, then consider the following information:
1. The famous Anglo-American writer, Christopher Hitchens, last year, decided voluntarily to be waterboarded and write his monthly Vanity Fair column about it. Graydon Carter even had the whole waterboarding session photographed and filmed. Not only did Hitchens do this without receiving any short or long term injurys but feeling he could have held out longer than he did he, at his own insistance was waterboarded again-twice in one hour.
Now If you can possibly imagine a free man voluntarily getting his hand smashed by a huge metal hamme, I ask you, can you imagine any man after having their teeth pulled without novacaine coming back within the hour for more teeth pulling of this kind for any reason? Again, ofcourse not.
2.Talk about conviction those who render waterboarding to be not just toture but a procedure that would be completly unjust and cruel if employed even in order to extract potentially life saving information on, for instance, the mastermind of 9/11 and de facto murderer of 3,000. However, these same people raise no objections, and do not accuse our arm services of toture when they force every Navy SEAL to undergo waterboarding in their training for combat in order to prepare Navy Seals for potential interrogation tactics emplyed in the case of their capture. Why when a Navy Seal, a law abiding citizen of the US who has never murdered any innocent civilians (delibratly atleast) not being totured when they are waterboarded but the mastermind of 9/11, KSM being totured when he is waterboarded? Why is it unacceptable and unhumane and barbaric to put the number 3 man in Al-Quada through waterboarding but just fine for a Navy Seal. Isn't toture toture whenever its imposed on someone or carried out. If the Navy Seals where being made to have their teeth pulled with no antistect just like terrorist detainees at Gitmo would leftists be saying that only the detainees where being totured further more would America ever stand for that? No.
Usually at adolscent boys schools freshman hazing traditions don't inovolve 14 year olds and 16 year olds regularly toturing boys of 13 or 14 or 12 year olds, right? They usually lock kids in lockers or make kids pay for the tables food or beat up once for hazing rather than, say, pull their finger nails off their fingers with plyers right? Well according to those who say waterboarding is toture boys military academy cadeats have been toturing one another (committing war crimes that many on the left believe warrant decades mininiumum in jail) as part of school hazing rituals with younger cadeats for centurys in America because for centurys, junior cadeats would waterboard each other.
Finally, doesn't the mastermind of 9/11, the confessed mastermind, KSM deserve to die for their actions? It's almost certain that all 3 of those who where waterboarded will be setenced to death and If by some amazing miscarriage of justice they aren't, America will erupt in rage. Assuming they will all get death, why is it ok for us to kill them but not to put them through temporary distress for 2-3 seconds via waterboarding in order to extract information from them while their still alive that can save lives? Why would it be moral to put KSM to death or Osama to death after not even trying to extract life saving info out of them because they said no when asked for information and refused to go further? Isn't it moral to save lives when lives can be saved by possibly just putting a terrorist murderer through temporary discomfort?
Considering all this, I think it should be obvious to any honest person that waterboarding KSM or any of the 3 we waterboarded wasn't toture and that it is absolutely wrong that the left think that being against waterboarding the likes of Osama Bin Laden is humantarian since we know that if such people had been listened during the Bush years, many innocent civilians would be dead today as a result of terrorist attacks that were foiled as result of forced interrogation techinques. Ofcourse the stopping of these attacks such as the blowing up of the Brooklyn Bridge by the CIA and the FBI just like all the other incredible facts mentioned above like tha fact that only 3 detainees have ever been waterboarded at Gitmo are suppressed and ignored and/or hardly covered by the leftist media.
Let me leave you with another one of those facts you'll feel outraged that you weren't told about years ago. This one is from Mark Thissens excellent recent book, "Courting Diaster":
The first terrorist detainee to be waterboarded, Abu Zabada, thanked the CIA interogators for waterboarding him, he said "you must do this for all the brothers" and he said this because the Jihadi philosphy is that allah will prevail no matter what they do so there moral responcibility is to resist as much they can and once they've resisted there free to spill their guts.
Case closed.
Showing posts with label KSM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label KSM. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Endless Dualities
Ever since the Obama era began i've been seeing doubles. Here's what I mean.
Obama, showing such regard for our deficit, is bringing KSM to New York knowing that security alone for the trial will cost the US tax payer 200 million dollars, plus other innumerable costs. This means that KSM will be given millionaire liberal treasonist lawyers likely from ACLU to defend him and the litigation of the trial will extend, many legal anyalsts guess, a minumum of six years. In that time, the nation will watch ACLU treastonist lawyers argue (with the aid of all the former ACLU & SPLC & CAIR lawyers within Obama's new Justice Department) that all the evidence and confessions against KSM that where (even possibly) extracted by methods of "toture" (aka making KSM listen to Van Halen all day) must wiped from the record and rendered nhill. So, chances are, a good or great deal of the CIA's evidence against KSM will be rendered void. Who knows but i can't believe KSM won't be given the death penality. The embarsment will be that it will take 6 or 7 years and that at the end it will have cost the American people hundreds of millions of dollars when we should have hung KSM long ago. Obama will also make America look like a joke to extremists who will watch as pony-tailed CAIR & ACLU lawyers (who will probably be jews to blind to see that there client, KSM, would stab them in the heart with a ball point pen if he could) argue for there man, KSM on TV for 6 years! They'll watch as weak methods of forced interrogation will condemned and they will laugh at how weak and femnized America has become. 50,000 New Yorkers have signed a peition
FIRST DUALITY
1. How does Obama treat mass murderer, KSM, the mastermind of 9-11
Obama acting against all precedents decides that Khalid Sheik Muhhomad (aka KSM) has Constuinial right even though he is not a citizen of the United States, leaving the side that he is the murderer of 3,000+ people, as the mastermind, the (confessed) mastermind, of 9/11. KSM admitted to what we know he did and pleaded to be executed.......like 5 years ago! And now, Obama and Eric Holder have decided to bring KSM to New York City for a civil civilian trial! not a military court!Obama, showing such regard for our deficit, is bringing KSM to New York knowing that security alone for the trial will cost the US tax payer 200 million dollars, plus other innumerable costs. This means that KSM will be given millionaire liberal treasonist lawyers likely from ACLU to defend him and the litigation of the trial will extend, many legal anyalsts guess, a minumum of six years. In that time, the nation will watch ACLU treastonist lawyers argue (with the aid of all the former ACLU & SPLC & CAIR lawyers within Obama's new Justice Department) that all the evidence and confessions against KSM that where (even possibly) extracted by methods of "toture" (aka making KSM listen to Van Halen all day) must wiped from the record and rendered nhill. So, chances are, a good or great deal of the CIA's evidence against KSM will be rendered void. Who knows but i can't believe KSM won't be given the death penality. The embarsment will be that it will take 6 or 7 years and that at the end it will have cost the American people hundreds of millions of dollars when we should have hung KSM long ago. Obama will also make America look like a joke to extremists who will watch as pony-tailed CAIR & ACLU lawyers (who will probably be jews to blind to see that there client, KSM, would stab them in the heart with a ball point pen if he could) argue for there man, KSM on TV for 6 years! They'll watch as weak methods of forced interrogation will condemned and they will laugh at how weak and femnized America has become. 50,000 New Yorkers have signed a peition
2. How does Obama treat a American army solidier in Iraq
1. And here's another story that shows how transparent and open to the public the Obama Adminstration is being: remember that polling station in Philadephia that the Black Panthers took over in full military regalia with weapons such as night sticks, intimidating and yelling racial slurs at whites trying to vote, telling one white guy, "Your about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"? Well, the Bush adminstration justice department had begun the prosectution of the black panthers involved but couldn't finish the prosecution before the Obama adminstration came in last Januarary. And guess what? Eric Holder, decided to hault and end the entire case against the Black Panthers.
2. This is while Holder sues Georgia for the "crime" of reuiring that those who want to vote verify citizenship with a ID. This is "discrimatory" according to Obama's Justice Department. Are blacks not allowed to get ID's in Georgia? No, they can like anyone else, but Holder claims that requiring voters to prove citizenship (a pretty basic procedure i thought) "disportionately effects African Americans and Latinos". So its illegal for Georgia require ID to vote because Holder claims blacks will not bring ID more than whites? huh? What if whites where effected more than blacks by Georgia's ID requirment? Would Holder sue Georgia then for "discrimination"? I don't think so. The truth is that Holder simply wants to ensure a high black turn out and illegal immigrant turn out so that he can keep his office in the Justice Department another term. But lets review, according to Barak Obama and the head of the Department of Justice, Eric Holder: its ok for a gang of black panthers to forcibly take over a Philadephia polling booth with weapons, to intimidate voters, yell racial slurs at white voters, but its "illegal" for the state of Georgia to have any requirments to make sure non-citizens are voting by requiring those who want to vote to prove citizenship. And i wonder would Holder have prosecuted that Philadephia case if the KKK had forcibly taken hold of a Philadephia voting station and intimidated and yell racial slurs at black voters? Something tells me Holder not only would have prosecuted that case but that we would still be hearing about for 20 years on NPR, ABC, MSNBC, with 5 year commerations of what happened. Justice indeed, huh?
Anyway, it gets even worse, even more hyprocritical and ridiclous. So after Holder squashed the case against the black panthers, some Republicans in the Senate where honorable enough to demand a exsplanation on behalh of the Justice Department for why they stopped the prosecution. But the Obama Justice Department refused to exsplain why it squashed the case, defying precedent even the Bush adminstation had never flouted.
Too bad only the readers of the Drudge Report, National Review, Vdare.com and a few other sites even know about these outrages. When will the mainstream media awake from its honeymoon with the Obama Adminstration (literally cause they are marrying each other) and start to be journalists again? Or is Rachel Maddow just going to spend each day calling Tea Partyers racists in a different sly way?
The young potheads that elected Barak Obama have no idea what there guy has been doing in office, they don't give a damn, there doing kegstands right now. And yet they are always getting appluaded by the Maureen Dowds. Yet the older patriotic Americans who care and know enough about whats going on to actually partcipate in Democracy by protesting and going to town-halls and speeches and rallys, they get scorned by the Mainstream Media, Maureen Dowd villifys them because there not "diverse" enough, because she doesn't like there skin color and there age.
Reform. Change. Transperency. Bah Humbug.
A navy seal accused of punching a Iraqi terrorist will be put on trial in Iraq, in a secret military tribunal so that we won't know what punishment he gets. So KSM, a non-citizen and a mass murderer who admitted to mastermining 9-11 and says he wants to die, gets full civil rights enshrined for citizens, a 6 year trial with millionaire dollar NYC lawyers but a Navy Seal who is accused of punching a terrorist in Iraq, doesn't get a civilian trial but a secret miltary tribunal that was made for people like KSM to be sentenced in secret.
DUALITY 2
1. Major Nadal Hasan jumps on a table at Fort Hood shouts "Alakuabar!" some islamic jihadist phrase and procedds to unload bullets, killing 16 off duty soldiers. We fine out that in power points as a pschritist he wrote about his love of jihad. His co-workers had reported years before his attachment to jihadism. We find out that the islamic phrase on his business card translated as "Warrior of Jihad". We find his emails back and fourth planning with a radical terrorist Imam in Yemen who later turns out to have helped trained the Nigerian crotch bomber. (there's even more information too). And Barak Obama comes on TV after the Hasan shooting and assures the country that the Fort Hood shooting had nothing to with Islam. Defense Secertary, Robert Gates, asked if he considered the Fort Hood Masscre a islamic terrorist attack, responds "im not even going to go there".
2. The New Haven Fire Deptarment gives out a test to promote firefighters to position of Capitian. Frank Ricci, who dyslexic and can barely read has spent 7 months studying hours a day for the test. He spends money to get friends to record a audiobook version of the relevant text book for the promotion test. He works and works on his off hours. The test for promotions to Captain comes, Ricci takes the test. He gets one of the highest scores of all, placing 6th among 70 plus test-takers meaning his promotion is automatic. But the city of New Haven, not liking the racial composition of those who got good enough scores for promotions, throws the test and Ricci doesn't get the promotion he earned. Ricci sues for discrimination since he obviously didn't get his job because he was white but would of had he simply been black. 6 other firefighters who passed the test, including one hispanic firefighter, file suit along with Ricci. There case, Ricci v. DeStefano makes all the way to the 2nd Apellate Court. The city of New Havens argues that the test was discrimitory towards black test takers even the test was checked not once but twice by companys which speciliazed in identifying if a test is "racially baised" or not. They don't even show how any one question on the test could have been discrimatory. One Judge on the 2nd Apellate Court is Judge Sonya Sotomayor, who votes against Frank Ricci and gives a astonishingly short ruling nearly just a paragraph long. Obama who agreed with Sotomayor that the black testtakers in New Haven had been discriminated against despite all the evidence, nominates Sotomayor to be his nominee for the Supreme Court. At this time, The Supreme Court overturns the decision in Ricci v. DeStefano in favor of Frank Ricci. During Sotomayors nomination hearings, Senator John Kyl asks Judge Sotomayor what precedent she followed in ruling against Ricci and fails to even give an answer.
So Obama and his people won't even call the masscacre at Fort Hood "islamic terrorism" but they will say that the New Haven fire fighters test that was checked twice for discrimination and which was approved to not be discriminatory both times was racist allow them can't show 1 discrimatory question on it.
2. The New Haven Fire Deptarment gives out a test to promote firefighters to position of Capitian. Frank Ricci, who dyslexic and can barely read has spent 7 months studying hours a day for the test. He spends money to get friends to record a audiobook version of the relevant text book for the promotion test. He works and works on his off hours. The test for promotions to Captain comes, Ricci takes the test. He gets one of the highest scores of all, placing 6th among 70 plus test-takers meaning his promotion is automatic. But the city of New Haven, not liking the racial composition of those who got good enough scores for promotions, throws the test and Ricci doesn't get the promotion he earned. Ricci sues for discrimination since he obviously didn't get his job because he was white but would of had he simply been black. 6 other firefighters who passed the test, including one hispanic firefighter, file suit along with Ricci. There case, Ricci v. DeStefano makes all the way to the 2nd Apellate Court. The city of New Havens argues that the test was discrimitory towards black test takers even the test was checked not once but twice by companys which speciliazed in identifying if a test is "racially baised" or not. They don't even show how any one question on the test could have been discrimatory. One Judge on the 2nd Apellate Court is Judge Sonya Sotomayor, who votes against Frank Ricci and gives a astonishingly short ruling nearly just a paragraph long. Obama who agreed with Sotomayor that the black testtakers in New Haven had been discriminated against despite all the evidence, nominates Sotomayor to be his nominee for the Supreme Court. At this time, The Supreme Court overturns the decision in Ricci v. DeStefano in favor of Frank Ricci. During Sotomayors nomination hearings, Senator John Kyl asks Judge Sotomayor what precedent she followed in ruling against Ricci and fails to even give an answer.
So Obama and his people won't even call the masscacre at Fort Hood "islamic terrorism" but they will say that the New Haven fire fighters test that was checked twice for discrimination and which was approved to not be discriminatory both times was racist allow them can't show 1 discrimatory question on it.
DUALITY 3
1. Obama spend millions to increase black history month funding and AIDS education in stimulus bill.
2. Obama doesn't spend a dime on the broken border.
2. Obama doesn't spend a dime on the broken border.
DUALITY 4
1. And here's another story that shows how transparent and open to the public the Obama Adminstration is being: remember that polling station in Philadephia that the Black Panthers took over in full military regalia with weapons such as night sticks, intimidating and yelling racial slurs at whites trying to vote, telling one white guy, "Your about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"? Well, the Bush adminstration justice department had begun the prosectution of the black panthers involved but couldn't finish the prosecution before the Obama adminstration came in last Januarary. And guess what? Eric Holder, decided to hault and end the entire case against the Black Panthers.
2. This is while Holder sues Georgia for the "crime" of reuiring that those who want to vote verify citizenship with a ID. This is "discrimatory" according to Obama's Justice Department. Are blacks not allowed to get ID's in Georgia? No, they can like anyone else, but Holder claims that requiring voters to prove citizenship (a pretty basic procedure i thought) "disportionately effects African Americans and Latinos". So its illegal for Georgia require ID to vote because Holder claims blacks will not bring ID more than whites? huh? What if whites where effected more than blacks by Georgia's ID requirment? Would Holder sue Georgia then for "discrimination"? I don't think so. The truth is that Holder simply wants to ensure a high black turn out and illegal immigrant turn out so that he can keep his office in the Justice Department another term. But lets review, according to Barak Obama and the head of the Department of Justice, Eric Holder: its ok for a gang of black panthers to forcibly take over a Philadephia polling booth with weapons, to intimidate voters, yell racial slurs at white voters, but its "illegal" for the state of Georgia to have any requirments to make sure non-citizens are voting by requiring those who want to vote to prove citizenship. And i wonder would Holder have prosecuted that Philadephia case if the KKK had forcibly taken hold of a Philadephia voting station and intimidated and yell racial slurs at black voters? Something tells me Holder not only would have prosecuted that case but that we would still be hearing about for 20 years on NPR, ABC, MSNBC, with 5 year commerations of what happened. Justice indeed, huh?
Anyway, it gets even worse, even more hyprocritical and ridiclous. So after Holder squashed the case against the black panthers, some Republicans in the Senate where honorable enough to demand a exsplanation on behalh of the Justice Department for why they stopped the prosecution. But the Obama Justice Department refused to exsplain why it squashed the case, defying precedent even the Bush adminstation had never flouted.
Too bad only the readers of the Drudge Report, National Review, Vdare.com and a few other sites even know about these outrages. When will the mainstream media awake from its honeymoon with the Obama Adminstration (literally cause they are marrying each other) and start to be journalists again? Or is Rachel Maddow just going to spend each day calling Tea Partyers racists in a different sly way?
The young potheads that elected Barak Obama have no idea what there guy has been doing in office, they don't give a damn, there doing kegstands right now. And yet they are always getting appluaded by the Maureen Dowds. Yet the older patriotic Americans who care and know enough about whats going on to actually partcipate in Democracy by protesting and going to town-halls and speeches and rallys, they get scorned by the Mainstream Media, Maureen Dowd villifys them because there not "diverse" enough, because she doesn't like there skin color and there age.
Reform. Change. Transperency. Bah Humbug.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
The truth about Waterboarding
[if you want to get straight to the straight dope about waterboarding, skip to the "Some important facts about waterboarding"]
Like global warming, liberals say that "the debate is over" about whether or not waterboarding is illegal toture. And as with global warming, the so-called "conesus" about waterboarding that it is clearly, barbabic, unlawful, toture is another incredible lie/myth.
Indeed waterboarding is a procedure of extracting information from prisoners which would be "brutal" if practiced upon a shoplifter in order to have him give up the names of his fellow accomplices, but we are not talking about shoplifters, nor are we even talking of murders, but mass murders, many of whom, possoses information and/or clues (like as to the whereabouts of Usama Bin Laden) that could quite potentially save thousands of innocent lives from destruction. The people who have and would be waterboarded, are indivuals that are so vile, they will certainly and deservedly be setenced to death in a court of law. I would agree with the proposition that it is perhaps cruel to pull Osama Bin Laden's teeth out for revenge. If a mass murderer has no potential value to a society as far as life saving information is concerned then just put him on trial and then put him to death by legal injection. But if a captured terrorist has potentially life saving information: extract the information first then put him on trial and kill him. We all agree on the need to get such information from terrorists. The questioon and the division arises over how one goes about extracting such information from people who hate us and do not want to help us especially in our pursuit of squashing and thwarting there jihadist amigos. Thus an logical person can adduce that these people will not, in all likelyhood, give up (as has been the case) there valuable information willingly. So it will take coercsion. But liberals say we can only ask kindly and/or bribe jihadists capitives to get such info. Ofcourse, interrogators will try kindly asking first before anything else. So a jihadist says "no" and liberals say "ok well too bad" and conservatives say "no, we're going to get this information". We do not want to pull out there teeth with out antisetia. We want to make them stand up for a day, or keep them up for 48 hours in order to try to get the info.
Indeed the most effective way to extract such information without doing anything doing more temporary damage to terrorists according to CIA interrogators is waterboarding.
SOME IMPORTANT FACTS ON WATERBOARDING:
LIBERAL CLAIM ON WATERBOARDING: "Waterboarding is illegal. It violates the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights which America is a signoatory to."
RESPONCE: Actually, our waterboarding of terrorists murderers at Gitmo is completly legal and not a violation of the Geneva Convention. To leave aside the fact that it is completly moral to waterboard a mass murderer in order to save lives, let us, look at what the Geneva Convention prohibits. The Conventions were signed after WW2 and exsplicitly apply only to what can and cannot be done to prisoners of war. That is that the Conventions only apply to the treatment of soldiers of a nation state within a war when captive by the opposing nation state. So it would be a vilation if a Russian soldier was waterboarded by Georgia when they went to war recently but it doesn't apply to Osama Bin Laden and all those within Gitmo because they are not soldiers of a nation state. Those who signed on to the Conventions after the WW2 were protecting indiviual soldiers of armies, young men being ordered to fight by there nation states, not mass murderers like Bin Laden who acted at there own will and were not forced to blow up the Twin Towers. This major difference cannot be ignored and yet the left ignores shamefully and implies that waterboarding KSM to save lives by excrating information is the moral equivalent of waterboarding a captured Italian officer in WW2 for the hell of it.
2ND LIBERAL CLAIM ON WATERBOARDING: "Waterboarding is toture and is morally wrong and beneath the values of the USA."
MY RESPONCE: Defining toture is a matter of drawling a line in a area which is not black and white but grey all over. It's all about distinctions. But waterbaording clearly is not toture. However if you define toture as making someone feel uncomfartable on purpose then i guess it is.
But here is a common sence definition of toture:
If your willing to try it in order to see what it feels like or in order to write a cover story for "Vanity Fair" about it, it's not toture. For instance, the celebrated Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens willingly had himself waterboarded not once, but twice in order to write a article about the parctice in Vanity Fair magazine. Indeed, in order to get waterboarded Hitchens had to pay former Navy SEAL's who knew how to so the procedure because the arm forces waterboard there own top officers as a way of training them incase they are captured behind enemy lines. At many private military schools for centuries, cadeats have, as means of hazing other cadeats, waterboarded eachother. Now would Christopher Hitchens have had had his teeth pulled out without novacaine in order to write a article for Vanity Fair about wheather or not its toture? Would anyone? Ofcourse not. Do schoolboys at military academys, pull eachothers teeth out with out novacaine as a form of "hazing"? Ofcourse not. Therefore waterboarding is clearly not toture. It leaves no lasting physical scars and has never killed anyone, it merely makes one subject to, literally, 1-2 seconds of extreme temporary distress. To be precise, it simulates the feeling of drowning without actually drowning.
SEE FOR YOURSELF:
Here is a highly recomended video of Christopher Hitchens being waterboarded and you can so for yourself if it's toture or not. While you watch ask yourself: is this on the same level as prodding someone's flesh with a smelting iron or severing someones limbs with a saw without antisetic? I dare say it simply impossible for an honest man to say that the murderer of 3,000+ innocent souls is above being subject to the following procedure in order to save more lives:
Christopher Hitchens gets waterboarded
Like global warming, liberals say that "the debate is over" about whether or not waterboarding is illegal toture. And as with global warming, the so-called "conesus" about waterboarding that it is clearly, barbabic, unlawful, toture is another incredible lie/myth.
Indeed waterboarding is a procedure of extracting information from prisoners which would be "brutal" if practiced upon a shoplifter in order to have him give up the names of his fellow accomplices, but we are not talking about shoplifters, nor are we even talking of murders, but mass murders, many of whom, possoses information and/or clues (like as to the whereabouts of Usama Bin Laden) that could quite potentially save thousands of innocent lives from destruction. The people who have and would be waterboarded, are indivuals that are so vile, they will certainly and deservedly be setenced to death in a court of law. I would agree with the proposition that it is perhaps cruel to pull Osama Bin Laden's teeth out for revenge. If a mass murderer has no potential value to a society as far as life saving information is concerned then just put him on trial and then put him to death by legal injection. But if a captured terrorist has potentially life saving information: extract the information first then put him on trial and kill him. We all agree on the need to get such information from terrorists. The questioon and the division arises over how one goes about extracting such information from people who hate us and do not want to help us especially in our pursuit of squashing and thwarting there jihadist amigos. Thus an logical person can adduce that these people will not, in all likelyhood, give up (as has been the case) there valuable information willingly. So it will take coercsion. But liberals say we can only ask kindly and/or bribe jihadists capitives to get such info. Ofcourse, interrogators will try kindly asking first before anything else. So a jihadist says "no" and liberals say "ok well too bad" and conservatives say "no, we're going to get this information". We do not want to pull out there teeth with out antisetia. We want to make them stand up for a day, or keep them up for 48 hours in order to try to get the info.
Indeed the most effective way to extract such information without doing anything doing more temporary damage to terrorists according to CIA interrogators is waterboarding.
SOME IMPORTANT FACTS ON WATERBOARDING:
LIBERAL CLAIM ON WATERBOARDING: "Waterboarding is illegal. It violates the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights which America is a signoatory to."
RESPONCE: Actually, our waterboarding of terrorists murderers at Gitmo is completly legal and not a violation of the Geneva Convention. To leave aside the fact that it is completly moral to waterboard a mass murderer in order to save lives, let us, look at what the Geneva Convention prohibits. The Conventions were signed after WW2 and exsplicitly apply only to what can and cannot be done to prisoners of war. That is that the Conventions only apply to the treatment of soldiers of a nation state within a war when captive by the opposing nation state. So it would be a vilation if a Russian soldier was waterboarded by Georgia when they went to war recently but it doesn't apply to Osama Bin Laden and all those within Gitmo because they are not soldiers of a nation state. Those who signed on to the Conventions after the WW2 were protecting indiviual soldiers of armies, young men being ordered to fight by there nation states, not mass murderers like Bin Laden who acted at there own will and were not forced to blow up the Twin Towers. This major difference cannot be ignored and yet the left ignores shamefully and implies that waterboarding KSM to save lives by excrating information is the moral equivalent of waterboarding a captured Italian officer in WW2 for the hell of it.
2ND LIBERAL CLAIM ON WATERBOARDING: "Waterboarding is toture and is morally wrong and beneath the values of the USA."
MY RESPONCE: Defining toture is a matter of drawling a line in a area which is not black and white but grey all over. It's all about distinctions. But waterbaording clearly is not toture. However if you define toture as making someone feel uncomfartable on purpose then i guess it is.
But here is a common sence definition of toture:
If your willing to try it in order to see what it feels like or in order to write a cover story for "Vanity Fair" about it, it's not toture. For instance, the celebrated Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens willingly had himself waterboarded not once, but twice in order to write a article about the parctice in Vanity Fair magazine. Indeed, in order to get waterboarded Hitchens had to pay former Navy SEAL's who knew how to so the procedure because the arm forces waterboard there own top officers as a way of training them incase they are captured behind enemy lines. At many private military schools for centuries, cadeats have, as means of hazing other cadeats, waterboarded eachother. Now would Christopher Hitchens have had had his teeth pulled out without novacaine in order to write a article for Vanity Fair about wheather or not its toture? Would anyone? Ofcourse not. Do schoolboys at military academys, pull eachothers teeth out with out novacaine as a form of "hazing"? Ofcourse not. Therefore waterboarding is clearly not toture. It leaves no lasting physical scars and has never killed anyone, it merely makes one subject to, literally, 1-2 seconds of extreme temporary distress. To be precise, it simulates the feeling of drowning without actually drowning.
SEE FOR YOURSELF:
Here is a highly recomended video of Christopher Hitchens being waterboarded and you can so for yourself if it's toture or not. While you watch ask yourself: is this on the same level as prodding someone's flesh with a smelting iron or severing someones limbs with a saw without antisetic? I dare say it simply impossible for an honest man to say that the murderer of 3,000+ innocent souls is above being subject to the following procedure in order to save more lives:
Christopher Hitchens gets waterboarded
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)