I dont know what the UCMJ is but if you can link it to the terrorist or better yet find a reputable source that declares that it applied to the terrorist then you will make your claim. Besides that, we might else well be talking about classified documents

Dont try to disagree with everything I say. I see that your real concern is about giving these people a fair trial. That is understandable, but you make some wierd slippery slope arguments.

For instance you say that denying them a trial makes us as bad as they are. We are different but the same you say. Denying a speedy trial is the same as murder. You lost me on this one.

I think the question about the effectiveness of waterboarding will not be solved here. You say it doesnt matter what it reveals. I find that to be a very narrow ledge to cling on. One that could be exposed with an infinite number of hypotheticals. You also use the slippery slope argument on this one. But that depends on the fact that waterboarding will lead to a degradation of a moral compass. There will always be the "worst" form of interrogation. There will always be limits that are pushed. As long as the limits are approached with the respect and understanding that they deserve, we will never have to worry about falling down such a steep slope. Clearly the limits were given the proper weight in this case when you consider the individuals who were waterboarded and the context of 9/11.

Now before we talk philosophy, you should address Obama's comment about how some prisoners will likely still not be sent to trial. It is the third time I mention the fact because you have not typed a single senence in response. It shows me that you are ignoring the truly complicated legal nature of the situation.

I dont have time now, but I am willing to speak to the new world view that the liberals are promoting...

 

Uniform Code of Military Justice

 

Just further proof how the conservative talking heads dislike the truth...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...06353#31007282

One of their own admits waterboarding is torture and now he's a liar and it was all a hoax.

Sean "the *****" Hannity needs to step up and prove either way by being waterboarded.

Go ahead Sean... step up or shut up

 

On the contrary, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that we claim to be a nation of law and we are fighting against the "evil do-ers". Great! Yet we go and disobey the law and commit acts of torture defending ourselves and our actions as justified.

Where do you draw the line?

It's like fighting crime in the streets but on a global scale. Quit being so extreme in your comparisons.

During WW2 the Germans committed huge attrocities against humanity in the name of the "master race" Watch "The Trial at Nuremburg" with Spencer Tracy and Burt Lancaster. You get almost a whiff of the arguments the German defense attorney uses to "justify" his clients actions similar to conservative talking heads defending waterbaording and such today.

 

My comparisons are not extreme. I was echoing what you have said earlier.

Plus its bad form to critisize extreme comparisons and then immediatley follow with a holocaust comparison !?!? lol


You hit the nail on the head when you ask, "where do we draw the line?" We should also ask, if and when do we bend the line? Because you have yet to prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that the law which applies (USMJ?) to these people was broken. But if it was broken, or bent, it seems like the circumstances that existed after 9/11 would be an extreme case that would justify extreme measures.

We should not be proud of what happened. We should not use it as a precedent or justification for future action. And we should not use it as a baramoter of our moral authority. Waterboarding is a extreme technique that was used on three of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. I do not lose sleep over what happened to these people and do not judge the people who put our national security above an ambiguous defintion of decency.

 

Pride has nothing to do with it. Our nation at the moment is not proud of the actions of some.

Here's the deal - you can't "bend" ****. When you're "top dog" all eyes are on you and if you falter they pounce. In a perfect world it would be great to be able to use the "ends justifies the means" defense, but right now we are in a fight with an enemy that recruits off our "indiscretions".

If you rip out the spleen of a terrorist to get the code to stop a nuke from taking out lower Manhatten - bravo! But once the smoke has cleared and you get tried for the tortured death of that terrorist then that's the price you pay and maybe after a year you'll get pardoned by the President.

Right now Patreaus and others are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world over there. That way they reject the militant extremists agendas. Doing what's right here shows that we are doing everything we can in "good faith".

For the only way you can knock this "terrorist" war is cut off their recruit supply and monetary funding.

 

Well it finally happened as I predicted something would at the beginning of this thread.

For years Bill O'Reilly led a personal crusade against Dr. Tiller - yes, the Dr. Tiller that was gunned down in a church this last Sunday - for performing late term abortions. Going so far as calling him Dr. Tiller the Baby Killer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_WIPNOOSI0

Here's some excerpts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r93Q31H8NJg

O'Reilly: "OK. So, I'm the fascist, I'm the bad guy, I'm the problem. Not Tiller. No, he -- no, no, no. He's a good guy. Now, Tiller's pumping all kinds of money into obviously the attorney general race. He wants the guy that's gonna let him off the hook to win. Those of you listening in Kansas, you ought to know that. You know, I don't -- I'm not gonna tell you who to vote for. You guys know these guys better than I do, but I tell you what, anything Tiller wants, I'm voting the other way. And if I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech."

Today now he claims this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Pt_5zM2bg

The far left is exploiting the death of the doctor - that performed abortions within the law in Kansas - yet still points out that he killed over 60k fetuses...

Give it a rest, Bill.

This kind of **** stirs up storms that are hard pressed to quell without destruction and hayhem in it's wake. You rant enough about someone and people listen and feel it's time to act - the lone gunman with an axe to grind finally finds a target that you so readily provide over, and over, and over again for nearly 4 yrs on your show.

Now he claim unfairness when the finger is point at him.

What an idiot.

 

http://www.?id=4b110d1f

 

Terrorists DO NOT recruit based on our indiscretions of our own laws. That statement is symbolic of the liberal mindset:

"I see the world in this way and will act accordingly without the need for supporting evidence."

Very opposite from the scientific approach that says:

"My world view is decided by observation and evidence, and I cannot impose my theory onto reality but instead must extract my theory from reality."

Terrorists recruit because our values are very different from their own.

For example this analysis: http://homepage.eircom.net/%257Eodys...Happiness.html

Lets not forget that 9/11 happened long before Gitmo.

Liberalism is more of a concept than a practical method of government. Liberals want to socialize health care because the concept is appealing. They want to write policy before they even know how to fund it. They acknowledge the exploding costs of social security and medicare, but say that creating another social program is more important than dealing with the costs of the others. They refuse to build nuclear plants despite France's lucrative nuclear program. They want to steer sharply into a green economy as a means of salvation despite Spain's mediocore results. They want to negotiate with Iran and give timetables despite North Koreas continued nuclear pursuits. They dont want to drill for oil, while China and India contibue to tap into this valuable resource. They want to base our energy supply on wind and solar power when those technologies account for maybe 1% of current supply. They say that we must be aware of our own carbon footprint and fly around in private jets for the sake of a photo op. They think that being apologetic leads to international respect, when it really only leads to their own self-serving satisfaction. They have no interest in running private corporations but insist on firing CEOs. They insist on being a nation of laws (even in the most extreme cases of interrogation) then burn the contracts of the automaker bondholders in favor of giving payback to the unions who have provided so much political support. They say we must respect an individuals right to life, but that late term abortions should be perfectly legal. They say that waterboarding revealed nothing but will not release the documents that show what it revealed. They say that Bush's policies have made the country less safe yet there has not been an attack in the country since 9/11.

Maybe thats what liberlism is all about. They have a concept of what this country should be and dive head first into the deep end. In the meantime, they are creating a government that nurtures its citizens from cradle to grave.

The conservative ideal is the self-sufficient individual. The government must only provide basic essentials like national defense, law and order, and infrastructure. It is the individuals repsonsibilty to use their assets to make the most of life, or else they will fail.


I will not comment much about blaming O'Reilly and Beck for murder. Let me just say that it too is typical of the liberal mindset to defame a persons character with the most hate filled rhetoric, if that person should in anyway be an obstacle or inconvenience to the liberal concpet. Miss California is a classic example of this. Keith Olberman calling O'Reilly the worst person in the world on a daily basis is another good example. Gibbs saying that the British newspaper the Telegraph is not a source of truth (but the NYT is legit) because it disagreed with the administration is another example. Saying that conservatives cling to guns and religion or that Veterans are potential domestic terrorists or people who support states rights (see the 10th amendment) are extremists are a few more examples.

I'm sure that the above analysis about the Tiller murder was taken right from the pages of the Huffington Post. Bill says, "cant be vigilantes", then some right-wing lunatic with a history of radicalism kills a docoter in cold blood and the liberals say, "Bill told them too do it."

If we look at actual facts you will see that Tiller was still opened to prosecution and had in no way been acquited of crimes. Quotes from Tiller himself admit that he was breaking the law but that governor Sebelius (now Secretary of Health and Human Services) was very sympathetic to abortion rights. 60,000 potential lives ended by this man, most of them were much more than potentially alive. Tiller is not exaclty the white knight of the pro-choice casue so they immediatly find a distraction and avoid the discussion by pointing at their favorite punching bag.

 

If we want to return to rational discussions (apart from blaming OReilly for murder), here is a thoughtful analysis of the torture debate, written by Charles Krauthammer:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...rhqav.asp?pg=1

He specifically addresses McCains involvement, and uses quasi-hypotheticals to conclude that,

"There must be exceptions. The real argument should be over what constitutes a legitimate exception."

QED