I'm certain because I've done my homework. I've studied the history. I've read the evidence. Cite that they think it works. It didn't "work" to thwart the attacks in L.A., because that attack was thwarted a full year before the waterboarding began. It didn't "work" to enough of a degree that they stopped using it in 2004. If it was so effective, why stop? You're doing an awful lot of guessing. Once again, you guess wrong. Especially after the well-cited post I provided to you above, I find it highly insulting that you would charge me with not applying careful thought to my opinion or conclusions. I wish I could find your obviously uneducated guessing as admirable, but I don't.

"Highly insulting"? :lol: No need to get all riled up, I'm just some idiot on a message board.

This is the Internet, get a helmet.

OK, well let me ask you this. In Pakistan, the US has a program where it identifies certain known bad guys and vaporizes them via missile from a predator drone.

Should we not do that?

I think I'll take this guy's experienced word over your personal guesses. . . Editing to add yet another source:

UT...at the end of the day, there is no substitute for the rule of law.

http://thinknola.com/wp-content/uplo.../12/heisus.jpg

Whether its torture in violation of treaty obligations or circumventing FISA and spying on Americans w/o a warrant or asserting presidential "war powers" when Congress authorized no such powers...when we condone lawbreaking by our highest elected officials.....where does it end?

More historians and scientists weigh in. . . "Enhanced interrogation techniques" have been scientifically proven to be completely useless in gaining truthful and accurate information. Testimony from people who have endured it and/or inflicted it, corroborates these truths, not guesses.

OK, well let me ask you this. In Pakistan, the US has a program where it identifies certain known bad guys and vaporizes them via missile from a predator drone.

Should we not do that?

UT...IMO, it is dishonest and disingenuous to even raise the comparison of a battlefield tactic to prevent an armed enemy from striking US forces (or US civilians) to the treatment of an enemy captive in your total control.

OK, well let me ask you this. In Pakistan, the US has a program where it identifies certain known bad guys and vaporizes them via missile from a predator drone.

Should we do that?

Start a new thread on the subject and we can discuss it.

I would raise the issue of the capacity of the enemy forces in question, proportionality, likelihood of success, the potential impact on non-combatants, and other battlefield issues....and acknowledging the fact that the enemy is "stateless" which raises an entirely new set of questions.

But it is an entirely separate discussion from torturing captives in your total control.

Why?

The law regarding torture vs military rules of engagement.

I've shown with cites that the activities our government and its agents participated in has been legally prosecuted as either a violation of international laws and treaties, as well as our Constitution, or violations of national and/or state laws. I've cited first-hand testimony from an FBI interrogator and a Naval serviceman who personally had experience with these techniques, and what they result in. And I've cited the results of studies done by historians and scientists, that show that these techniques do not provide reliable information.

And instead of reading my cites, studying the evidence and acknowledging that your "guesses" were inaccurate and unfounded, you ask a totally unrelated question in an apparent attempt at a "gotcha"?

Will you please do me the courtesy of not insulting me with allegations of not having exercised careful thought, while at the same time not exercising your own careful thought? I can't debate with someone who is unwilling to examine the expert evidence and admit when he is mistaken.

They were very good cites, Jill, and you have changed my opinion.

You haven't convinced me, Dux, pretend I'm dumb. Surely there's a connection in the discussion between killing the enemy, versus capturing them and what you do with them once they've been captured. In the case of Pakistan, surely these "targets" could provide some interesting intelligence if captured and questioned. What is the moral basis for killing them, versus capturing them and putting them in a box with a bug? If it's a question of law, is the law correct?

Thank you, Undertoad. I respect you very much for that acknowledgment. I'm also glad to have changed your mind on this issue.

Don't think that I don't appreciate your gut reaction here. Some of these guys have perpetrated great evil against our citizens and our government, and some of them are or were involved in plots to do more of the same. I am against the death penalty, not because I don't believe the scum who find themselves facing that punishment don't deserve to die, but because I don't believe the government has the right to intentionally take a human life as a form of punishment. That doesn't stop me from fantasizing about being the one to pull the handle or press the plunger at some of these guys' executions. It's normal and natural to want to seek revenge. And it's normal and natural to sometimes very much want to beat the everlovin' fuck out of some asshole.

I would have a very hard time not shaking with rage if I were ever to be placed face-to-face with one of these pussbags. Restraining myself would not be easy, trust me.

But as a nation, subject to laws that we and the rest of westernized, civilized nations have adopted, we simply cannot resort to diminishing ourselves by behaving like barbarians. Here's another article with some interesting observations. It's worth reading the whole thing, but here's one of the more interesting bits:

:bolt::brikwall:

There were cites also posted by professionals that counter the opinion of your cites.
Why won't you answer his question?

Honest people routinely cite you for posting accusations without facts. You even lie (as caught doing so previously) to protect a political agenda. Stir the pot to create confusion. Never post supporting facts for your myths. Attack others with soundbyte accusations based only in a wacko extremist mantra. You would do it again to Jill? When do you post your research from a responsible source? Oh. classicman does not have any research - as any good extremist when knowledge comes only from Rush Limbaugh, et al. That justifies classicman's cheapshot post?

I can confirm that Jill's citations are the popular opinion among federal agents who do or did this stuff. This poster has personal statements from those who did real world work even on some famous cases. Have repeatedly said almost everything in Jill's citations.

Where is classicman's research - also known as vaporware. Knowledge based only in "I feel it is true" research.

Jill's citations introduce one concept that others never mentioned. Torture was once used not for information. Its purpose was criminal punishment. Numerous others who did this stuff - not one ever mentioned this criminal punishment aspect for torture.

So how does a disciple of Wingnut News know more than professionals? classicman again *knows* which explains numerous supporting facts in his every soundbyte accusation. classicman would take a cheap shot rather than contribute facts? I am not the only one who has accused him of doing this.

Professionals routinely state that torture only poisons the well. But those so extremists as to support Cheney still deny because Cheney, et al said so. Cheney is an professional? Well Cheney also thought he was a world class military strategist. When did Cheney become a god - to be blindly believed by wacko extremists?

When does classicman post anything but empty accusations? classicman is accused of doing to Jill what he does routinely - soundbyte accusations - cheap shots this time at Jill.

I am going by what experts, including SERE trainers, have said in interviews on TV.

The psychology part, it doesn't take an expert to tell me that it would be different when you are doing a training exercise where you KNOW the people in charge aren't going to let something happen to you, and being a prisoner where you really actually fear for your life. That is basic psychology 101.

So because they do it, that means WE should? That is a very poor argument for doing things that are inhumane and immoral to another human being. The United States of America is supposed to above such things. We are supposed to be the moral leaders of the world. How can we claim such a title when we lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists that we so hate?

I have a question for all of you who think what we did isn't torture, those pictures from Abu Ghraib, if they had been reversed, and it was OUR soldiers who were treated like that, how would you have felt? You would all have been screaming bloody murder that they were tortured, but since it was US who did it, you feel the need to make excuses. You really need to examine that.

I'm pretty sure Jill has careful thought. She certainly seems to, from her posts anyway. My opinions, well, my opinions come from looking at different times in history when torture has been used, like the Inquisitions. Everything I've read makes me believe that evidence gained during torture is unreliable. Add to that all the experts who have testified or said in interviews that torture is an unreliable way to gain information makes me believe it even more. And my moral compass tells me it's wrong. No one can make me believe it is actually OK for a civilized country or people to act in that way, no matter what is at stake.

UT, the scenario you described above, the accidental killing of innocent victims while striking at an enemy, is far different from torturing someone who is in custody. One is collateral damage that is an accident, the other is purposeful and intentional mistreatment of someone who is already in custody.

Jill. That was brilliant. Really interesting.

This, right here, that we are describing is the ragged edge. We cannot as peoples dictate which threats will occur and which dangers we will face. We can only dictate our response. It is up to us, whether or not that response robs us of our humanity, or proves it. .

Just as an aside though; it's wrong to say torture isn't effective...look how many witches we managed to root out in the middle-ages.

Would you mind pointing those out to me, please? I've read through this entire thread and I failed to find any cites that counter, not the "opinions" as you characterize them, but the first-hand testimony and scientific research that I provided.

In post #69, Undertoad provided a link to an editorial, written by the former speech writer to President Bush, that you quoted in the following post, that attempts to "decode" the memos that are the subject of this thread. The author goes on and on about what we all know now is false information about what interrogation techniques actually resulted in thwarting the planned attack in Los Angeles. It's been proven that that attack was uncovered nearly a year before waterboarding started being applied.

So since that cite was nothing more than an obviously politically biased editorial that has been thoroughly debunked, I feel no compunction to accept it as countering any cites I provided.

Then we have your post #82, with a link to an article alluding to a secret memo by President Obama's National Intelligence Director, wherein he allegedly says that "high value information . . . a deeper understanding of the al-Qaida network" [was obtained using the harsh interrogation methods]. That would seem to support your claim. However, we aren't made privy to the actual memo that allegedly went out. We have no way of determining context, intent, or even whether those quotes were pulled completely out of context, and don't mean what the author alleges they mean. And the clarification that was provided, was brushed aside as "hedging."

You will note, that in post #128, Redux provides a link that also mentions the private memo and the same allegations of its content as your cite. However, it goes on to expose a serious flaw in that allegation. Then we get to your post #192, wherein we get a nifty little biography of some of the bad guys, then this: Ok, I'll accept this one as a cite that you believe provides evidence contrary to what I've provided. However, there are two distinct problems with it.

1.) John Kiriakou, as a former CIA officer who supposedly witnessed the interrogation, has a very personal vested interest in Covering His Ass. His testimony, therefore, should be weighed very lightly before we allow it any credence.

2.) It goes on to say that "It’s been suggested" that these interrogations led to the capture of another bad guy. Suggested by whom? Not to mention that a "suggestion" isn't remotely the same as a "proven connection."

Ironically, your next cited post, post #198, completely contradicts the cite in your previous post, saying "Kiriakou said he did not witness Abu Zubaida's waterboarding but was part of the interrogation team that questioned him in a hospital. . . " So which version of his story should I believe? He either witnessed the waterboarding as alleged in your cite in post 192, or he didn't, as he later claims in your cite in post #198.

I find Kiriakou to be an unreliable witness and feel comfortable dismissing any evidence provided by him until such time as he has to testify under oath.

There aren't any more referenced cites between there and when I re-entered the discussion in post #234. Because it's completely irrelevant and off-topic in the scope of this discussion.

Thank you sugarpop and DanaC. I appreciate the compliments and kind words. :)

No I won't. I'm done with this discussion for now. As tw pointed out my opinions are irrelevant since they disagree with his.

I thought this was interesting. According to a recent poll, the more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists.

Turn the other cheek. Ha!

I wonder if the timing of this poll had any impact on the outcome. I wonder if they did a similar poll back in 2001 or 2005 or... just to see a trend.

Link
I'm not sure of the validity of this, but it is rather damning.

Well I must be the oddball then. I do not support torture. I said so when this first came out and I have written my congressman with my opinion. In general I support humane treatment of prisoners because it is the ethical path and because I want humane treatment for our men and women if they are captured.

Over and above that I can't see how anyone can approve torture for people who have been convicted of no crime.

As for the poll, I never doubted that I was a:

An interesting bit about the history of torture by the Brits in WW2 on NPR today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103728934

Opinions exist when one first has facts. Because Pat Robertson says so, that is a fact?

But you lie (again) about what I said. What you call opinions is propaganda. Repeating what a political machine tells you to believe. Jill even asked you to back up your cheap shot with facts. You cannot do that. Limbaugh does not tell you why; only tells you what to believe.

So you lie about what I state? Opinions are nothing more than propaganda when hateful O'Reilly preachings are mindlessly echoed. Why do you repeatedly forget what I really said? Opinions require supporting facts.

Extremists must and will routinely lie even about torture. It was promoted by those who know; but forgot to learn how interrogation works. Then lie again to scapegoat enlisted men once they realized in pictures what torture really looks like. Soldiers must be sacrified for a political agenda.

Somehow enlisted men accidently used torture methods approved at the highest levels of government? Another lie promoted in 2004 and 2005 to blame enlisted men for torture. Who needs so much protection as to lie?

These are honest men - who accidently got it wrong even about Saddam's WMDs? Who accidently sent 4000 American soldiers to death? Lying is routine: demonstrated when Jill challenged you to support your accusations with facts.

But again, the common factor repeated. Extermist political agendas justify constant lying and posting cheap shot accusations.

I had a friend who worked in boiler rooms. Telephone scams. He loved the most religious. They would most often believe anything he told them; were so easy to close a deal.

When I watch people religiously watching World Wrestling, I wonder what they believe.

tw - you are an asshole - plain and simple - I need not write 1500 words why, it is plainly obvious. Not once have I ever quoted nor brought up Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Fox news into a discussion, I do not listen to nor watch them. You, however, must spend a great deal of time doing just that as you seem to know exactly what they say and think.

Being ridiculed and attacked because my opinions are different than yours shows what a pathetic, worthless piece of shit you really are. When asked repeatedly by several other posters to support your baseless attacks on other posters, you did not, you could not. To delve as low as you routinely do (calling another posters wife a "gonorrhea dripping whore") shows EXACTLY what kind of person you are.

I do not lie. I am an honest person. Both statements you cannot make.

It's all the same battlefield, Redux. Can't really part 'em. Haven't since WWI. We shall stand or fall on our HUMINT in this fight. If there is failure to gather information through HUMINT, how is your life improved should the enemy thereby manage to kill you off?

It sure wouldn't improve mine.

Annoyed, but I wouldn't call it torture. Why do you insist that the most thoughtful, profound people on the board are thoughtless?

We can win, or we can make excuses. We had until recently an Administration who wasn't making excuses, but trying to win. I don't see the same spirit in the Obama Administration, which is why I voted for a real war-fighter, not a socialist-influenced comparative lightweight who by his mere unaggressiveness shall encourage the icky fascistic unfriendlies. It is bad for the Republic, and bad for mankind in general, to encourage these unfriendlies. Show otherwise or shut up.

How exterminating the savage and the brutal diminishes us in any moral dimension quite escapes me, Jill. Performing damage control is simply sensible.

We won against Germany, Italy, and Japan by showing the hard visage of war and outfighting them -- outcontending them in the field they themselves chose. Did this turn us into fascists of any description? It did not. There is nothing that would do it now. As Hannity puts it, "Let not your heart be troubled" on that score. Countervailing violence is defensible violence, and I for one defend it, and I think I can overwhelm all your arguments against it. Don't mistake the distasteful for the unnecessary. Remember it is distasteful to be murdered.

The terrs have been choosing their field. It's one rather new to us in some ways, but not wholly new in others, for we remember Vietnam. In some measure, this is a war being fought by advertising, guerrilla theater, whatever you like, along with community services in tattered places, bombs, helicopters, bullets, beans, and bayonets.

I am happy to agree their ability to actually damage us is small in the grand scheme of things. Nonetheless, that does not mean they should be allowed to damage. They are the transgressors thereby.

Their transgressions must be kept bootless and fruitless, that they may cease to transgress. Or become too dead to manage a transgression. This is what those who are clear on the matter want.

Amazing. Truly amazing.

Mere horse sense. Dead folks have one tough time actually doing any evil. That's a good thing.

(Must remember: application of horse sense passes for amazing with Dana. How well the Left is served.)

Meanwhile, Ann Coulter could hardly contain her mirth at it all in her recent column: April 29 . . . We do that on first dates.

I'm not really interested in what tw thinks of your opinion. Since I'm the one engaging you in this discussion, it should only matter that I don't think your opinions are irrelevant.

What I believe is that you've formulated your opinions based on erroneous information that you have relied upon as being factual. It is my hope that pointing you to the sources from which I've formed my opinion, you might come to a different conclusion than the one you currently have. tw, much as I appreciate your support, you have (probably unintentionally) misrepresented my response to classicman. He didn't make any "accusations", he said that there were cites here that contradicted the ones I provided. So I went back to look for them. What I found did not seem to support his contention, so I asked him to point me to what I might have missed.

Then I took those cites I thought he might have intended as countering mine, read them thoroughly and pointed out what I consider to be unreliable and contradictory accounts. It is now incumbent upon him to consider my assessment of those cites and either acknowledge that they don't, after all, support the argument he was making, or counter my assessment of them. He's not likely to do either when the peanut gallery is shouting 'LIAR' from the bleachers. In some circumstances it very well might be. What my cites support, is that in the case of torturing people we've rounded up and imprisoned, it is not sensible in any way to torture them. You conflate two entirely different sets of circumstances and attempt to draw parallels that don't exist. I have no problem "outfighting" the enemy on the battlefield. Especially since I'm a Jew, you can be damn sure I have no complaints about beating the crap out of Hitler in the war he started.

And I sure as hell have no sympathy for terrorists, either. But what I have attempted to show you, is that the methods our government and its agents used against them while they were in our care, custody and control, does not produce the results you claim it does. No, I'm afraid you'll never overwhelm any of my arguments against it, though you're certainly free to try.

I do not mistake the distasteful for the unnecessary. There are many necessary aspects of war that I find distasteful, yet fully support. Torture is not one of them. It is not only distasteful, but it is, in point of fact, unnecessary. That I believe I have proven with my cited evidence; torture does not produce reliable results. The FBI, who knew more about Al Qaida than anyone in the world, obtained that information by non-violent interrogation methods long before the CIA and outside agents stepped in and took over with their "enhanced" interrogation methods.

The kind of abuse inflicted upon our prisoners is not the kind that produces good intelligence, but the kind that produces more terrorists. On that we completely agree. If those methods actually provided the result of keeping them bootless and fruitless, you might have an argument to make in its favor. As it doesn't, the only thing I've been able to glean from your points is that you just want revenge. You simply like the idea of beating the crap out of these guys, tough luck if it kills them. Somehow that makes you feel bigger, better, stronger. The reality is that it does only diminish us.

http://www.bloodysushi.com/macro/nsf...uck%20yeah.jpg
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/d...caFuckYeah.jpg
http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/r.../podpeople.jpg

Sure.

What's that got to do with torturing captives?

I believe he's conceded that question is irrelevant.

You had me at hello, you had me at...
\
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/fo.../poopeteer.gif

The question is still relevant, just take out the bug in the box bit.

Well no maybe not. Anyway, it's still a decision to be made.

Actually, Jill, what such of the record as we without clearances and accesses know is that it did work and we did bust up some impending attacks from what we choked out of those three men. Apparently in amongst whatever else they might have said, they also told us some things that were accurate. And we determine this by following up on the leads; some leads no doubt didn't pan out, and certain others evidently did.

Despite their manifest desire to repeat their successes of 9/11, no repetitions have occurred. That isn't an accident, I feel sure. Don't you, on consideration?

It looks like the truth of the matter is more subtle than you're conceiving it to be.

This rather reinforces my argument:

From here.

My contention is that there is no fundamental difference between fighting against the anti-freedom hegemonists this time or then -- that it is the same regardless of time or place. You claim to find some kind of difference, without actually outlining what you conceive this alleged difference to be. What are details of date or language next to the essential question of "Who's for a liberal social order, and who's against?" Thus, I support Israelis against Arabs, America against the Jihadists, and so on. There are people on this board who have the colossal stupidity and fascistic sympathies -- conscious, as in tw's case, or not, as in Redux's (or the average leftwinger's, to be blunt) -- to object to my approach, and vehemently.

I get this sort of half-thought-through argument all the time from the opposition. It is tedious. They seem to avoid knowledge, preferring the shibboleths they've been spoon-fed.

Putting aside the contention that you know that it worked despite the numerous DoD, DoJ and CIA IG reports and other documents that have been released and suggest, at a minimum, that there is no such certainty....and that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were highly questionable as to their legal justification.

We know that Bush/Cheney and neo-cons like yourself believe that the Geneva Conventions and UNCAT are tedious.

Still the law.....the supreme law of the land.

Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

Buth why should that matter?

If the president authorized it, it must be legal:

“And so...if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”
~ Condi Rice

You guys are our "freedom fighters" and answer to a higher authority than the Constitution.

UG....I generally refrain from playing the fascist card as you so often feel a need to do to characterize those with whom you disagree.

But wouldnt those like yourself who believe a president (and top subordinates) is the law or above the law ("...if it was authorized by the president...") be the ones with fascistic sympathies?

And here, I thought the Department of Justice is responsible for upholding the law.....hardly a fascistic sympathy.

With all due respect, that is the complete opposite of what we know. I have provided links to first-hand accounts, stating that the timelines alleged don't work, that the information that led to "bust[ing] up some impending attacks" came from other detainees, and said information was provided with standard interrogation methods. You've provided no evidence to dispute the sources I provided. You appear to be buying what you're being told by the right-wing media, without questioning the veracity of their claims. Pure speculation without any support. Of course it's not an accident. But you provide no evidence that torturing detainees is the reason there have been no repetitions. There weren't any repetitions of the 1993 WTC bombings for 9 years, and we weren't torturing anyone in the aftermath of that attack.

And yet we knew that Bin Laden was "Determined to Strike in the U.S.", and we even knew that the plans included hijacking airliners, and we knew all of this through traditional intelligence gathering techniques. Which President got this briefing? Which President ignored it, to all of our detriment and peril? It looks like the truth is entirely different from what you're conceiving it to be. No, you did not claim that it is the same regardless of time or place. That is why you believe you can accuse me of not outlining what the difference is. Let me show you our exchange again so you don't have to go back and look for it, highlighting the relevant portions. Battlefield /= Prison cell

War /= Interrogations

I hope this "outline" is clear now. Huh? I have no idea what "details of date or language next to the essential question, etc." even means. This is just gobbledeegook. This sentence doesn't make any sense as written, either. What I think you're trying to say is that other members of this board are too stupid and fascist, whether consciously or unconsciously, to -- what, challenge your approach or vehemence? Again, Huh?

Not to mention, as I explained to classicman, I don't really give a hoot about what you think of tw or Redux or anyone else, personally. I'm having this conversation with you, and if you'd like to continue it, I'd respectfully ask that you refrain from ad hominem and stick to debating the facts, not other posters. Again, argumentum ad hominem.

On the subject of torture, I thought of a good one yesterday.

Tie the subjects hands and feet up and then let them get bitten by sandflies, midgees and mosquitos. They wont be able to scratch, and I reckon it'd drive a person insane.

I would just force them listen to UG for a couple hours....far worse torture.

UG is entertaining. ;) And even more entertaining is the fact that some people take him seriously.

ding ding ding - we have a winner
:)

How many of those people do you think were actually witches? Which is another argument that it doesn't work. People were ratting out anyone and everyone just to make it stop.

Well sir, I do not believe you. Anyone who thinks we do not torture, I would be willing to bet if the shoe had been on the other foot, they would be screaming bloody murder for revenge if it had been OUR soldiers who were treated so inhumanely at Abu Ghraib. They would be crying for blood.

And to put everything in perspective, more people die in this country in car crashes every year than were killed on 9-11. More people die of cancer every year. More people die from handguns every year. More people die from alzheimers, or kidney failure, or diabetes. Hell, more people die from the damn flu every year than died in 9-11. Does that mean we shouldn't have gone after the people who attacked us? No. Of course we should have. But attacking a country that had nothing to do with it was wrong. Imprisoning people who had nothing to do with it, and holding them for YEARS without a trial was wrong. And most definitely torturing them was WRONG.

*blink* well, obviously m'dear, that was my point :P

In answer to your question I think none of them were 'witches'.

After I reread it, I kinda got that. :blush:

I think some of them probably were for sure, but the majority definitely not. I imagine the number of people who were actual witches was probably pretty low.

*slight shrug* all depends what you mean by 'witch'. Mostly 'witches' would have been herbalists and healers. Witches weren't burned for healing. The designation 'witch' meant that they practised 'magic' and cavorted with the devil. Since I don't believe in 'magic' and I don't believe in the devil, I don't believe any of those people could have been 'witches'.

True, but where was our knowledge of the enemy at that time? Nowhere. There seems also this undercurrent of thinking that we for some reason ought simply to tolerate having our buildings knocked down, our people killed, our nation shocked by people of ideas so unpopular they must kill people to make them stick. Why?

I do not hold with that kind of fatuous thinking, and my opponents never seem to extricate themselves from it.

And you forgot that there wasn't anything in that report with a date or a place or anyone named, or even described, as the terrorists? There was nothing in there that could be used to target the men responsible.

It is not a sustainable idea to insist that Bush could only make errors, because, after all, he was trying to commit foreign policy while being Republican. That seems the core of your argument in the above quote.

Fighting against the forces of undemocracy and lessened liberty = fighting against the forces of undemocracy and lessened liberty, quite regardless of whether it's under the sky or in a room. I had thought I had made that clear to even the meanest understanding.

By interrogations, you gain intelligence, and with intelligence, you fight better. So it's all the same thing, really. About the only point you really have here is that interrogations differ from overall war about the way infantry differs from close air support; each has its piece of the action.

I see nothing opaque in the sentence. I'd suggest this failure to get it is owing to a blank refusal to think.

Here being an example of that blank noncomprehension: what I said was that I am vehemently disagreed with by people of fascist sympathies, not democratic ones. And it looks like you can correlate their vehemence with their lack of enthusiasm for propagating genuine democratic government abroad on the earth. They seem to think that leaving the fascists unmolested -- their villainies the better to perform -- is the best road, the embodiment of wisdom, and we'll all be good good friends. It's been said elsewhere that "It's an old idea, called 'peace at any price.'"

I say its wiser to make no friends of the undemocrats, the fascists, the communists, the other madmen and their tools. I say it is wiser and better to remove these obstacles to human liberty and progress, and to remove them without let or hindrance.

I am proud to be an apostle of liberty. My opponents, however, cannot have such pride, for they do not deserve to, and aren't trying for it in any case -- they're dead to it from the heart upwards.

Actually, we knew quite a bit about al qaeda back then, but Bush thought they weren't all that dangerous so he demoted Richard Clarke and told people to stop talking to him about it. In the summer of 2001, one of our best informed people about al qaeda in the FBI, John O'Neill, left because he had been forced out. Ironically, he had been hired as head of security at the WTC, and he was killed in the attack. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/ He had been warning us another attack was coming, or trying to warn us. It's kinda hard to warn people when they stop listening to you. Carrying on though, Bush ignored the chatter in the summer of 2001 and went on vacation, instead of trying glean any information about how or when or where bin Laden might try to attack inside the United States, even though some people in intelligence had said their hair was fire there was so much chatter. If Clinton had still been in office, there is a chance, however slight (or big), that we might have stopped it, because Clinton took al qaeda seriously, and he warned Bush that al qaeda was the biggest single threat facing America at that time. Too bad Bush choose not to listen to him. So we were hit by them for the second time.

Bush didn't even TRY to glean any new information. He had been warned, and he chose to look the other way and to NOT investigate the warning or take it seriously.

Trying to commit foreign policy while being republican? WTF does that mean? I thought republicans thought they were the superior party with regard to foreign policy? Clearly though they are not.

Not when the intelligence you gain is tainted because of the methods you choose to use, OR the fact that recruiting for the enemy goes up based on the interrogation methods we use. It is a FACT that al qaeda recruitment went up after Abu Ghraib and the knowledge that we used torture, in a prison where it was known Saddan also used torture... How fucking brilliant was that? ummmm, it wasn't. In fact, it couldn't have been MORE STUPID.

Since I am one of these people you refer to as "fascist" (even though you seem to clearly not know what that word actually means), I will say this, why exactly is it OUR JOB to propogate democracy across the globe? How is that ANY DIFFERENT from Russia trying to propogate communism? Forcing a form of government on people who may not want it is not democratic by any definition of the word.

And ftr, we have overthrown democratically elected leaders in the middle east (and elsewhere) for the simple fact that they were not friendly to our wanting control over certain aspects of their economy, like OIL. Overthrowing a government that had a leader who was democratically elected by his people, and well liked by his people, is NOT spreading democracy.

You claim the United States is not empirialistic, but yet you tout spreading democracy, in places where people do not want our kind of government. How is that in any way democratic?