Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I just love it when people who "think they know stuff" just because they've watched a few news items on Fox or MSNBC, or read a few left or right leaning blogs, think they can hold a candle to a professional politician in a one on one debate.
Without the internet to hand, most people couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag.
Within half an hour, that kid will have Googled a dozen different illustrations of why she is wrong. But I'll bet he doesn't spend a minute researching the illustrations to find out whether they stand up to scrutiny.
I only watched the first couple of minutes of the clip, but even though I disagree with the torture of prisoners, I think she did a good job of explaining her/their position. I also respect the fact that she gave him a chance to ask the questions he did.
The guy is obviously not a professional. I don't think he should be ridiculed for asking questions even if his point of view is wrong. What I wouldn't give for a few minutes to sit down with someone like Barack Obama, whom I disagree with and simply ask a few questions. I think doing so, might give me a whole new impression of the man as I would think maybe this person got of Condelezza Rice.
Immie
I wish Condi would run for President. Unlike Hillary, she's a real woman and unlike Obama, she's a real African-American (he's just 6%, you know).
Would it bother you if it turns out that Condi is gay and a fomrer Black panther??
Jillian that bit of duplicity has got to stop, saying we tried japanese officers for waterboarding is like saying that a guy who is arrested for murder and charged with unlawful possession of a fire arm and a a whole host of of other charges including one at the bottom of the list for possession of a controlled substance is being tried only for possession of a controlled substance and in those cases it was for using them against POW's which the Gitmo guys clearly aren't. Even according that legal genious Eric Holder...
I'm not ridiculing him for asking questions. I'm ridiculing him for asking a question with a clear agenda behind it. A simple question is fine. When you're trying to score points you should know your stuff.
What is it they say is the key to being a good trial lawyer? It's not just knowing what questions to ask, it's knowing what questions not to ask. The best attack strategy is targeting the weakness in your enemy's defense.
and those japanese were prosecuted for NUMEROUS other things as wellI love that woman,, see how patient she was? didn't shout him down or talk over him... that's a remarkable difference in the way the left operates.
well, it's easy to be patient when one doesn't have to deal with someone as stupid as you are.
oh...and it IS torture. that's why we prosecuted the Japanese for doing it.
not just waterboarding, and the style of waterboarding they used was VASTLY different
Those two guys, especially the first one, remind me so much of some of the people here.
3,000 people died. Justice department gave clearance.
It was not torture.
You can't go back five years and say the law was wrong then and prosecute.
Iraq War News & History: United States executed Japanese war criminals for waterboardingand those japanese were prosecuted for NUMEROUS other things as wellwell, it's easy to be patient when one doesn't have to deal with someone as stupid as you are.
oh...and it IS torture. that's why we prosecuted the Japanese for doing it.
not just waterboarding, and the style of waterboarding they used was VASTLY different
The moonbats already know this...they just think if they keep repeating the lie long enough,it will suddenly become the truth.
Those two guys, especially the first one, remind me so much of some of the people here.
3,000 people died. Justice department gave clearance.
It was not torture.
You can't go back five years and say the law was wrong then and prosecute.
My, my, such idiocy. We hung Germans that claimed "Orders are orders". But our own people lack such a moral compass that they cannot be expected to realize that what they are doing is illegal and immoral.
I hope that someday some of you that are endorsing this type of illegal and immoral actions get to experiance them directly.
Sometimes I have a difficult time keeping a civil tongue (hand? keyboard?) when faced with the pointless ad-hominim attacks half of this board seems so fond of, but since I don't want to add to that, I'll do my best.
The "You had to be there, you have no idea what pressure was on us" defense has been used before, and indeed is often the last refuge of an authority figure who has overstepped the bounds of their authority. Perhaps there's even some validity to it. But what it in the end argues is that no decision made by an authority figure during a crisis can ever be critisized, no matter how improper or incorrect.
She further degenerates into stating some irrelevant fact about guantanamo being considered a normal minimum security prison, as if that means anything. She tries to attack the young man's credibility by pointing out bits of information of which he was not aware. The young men were clearly underinformed, but that does nothing to strengthen her position.
The "trials" that the military commissions act attempted to put through were sham trials, which allowed information gathered with the use of "coercive" methods, such as long periods of sleep depravation in stress positions naked for over a week, as evidence. A person in that state might confess to anything to make that treatment end, and that confession could be used to put them to death.
Well let me explain to you with all the civillity I can muster.. You are full of shit.
Sometimes I have a difficult time keeping a civil tongue (hand? keyboard?) when faced with the pointless ad-hominim attacks half of this board seems so fond of, but since I don't want to add to that, I'll do my best.
The "You had to be there, you have no idea what pressure was on us" defense has been used before, and indeed is often the last refuge of an authority figure who has overstepped the bounds of their authority. Perhaps there's even some validity to it. But what it in the end argues is that no decision made by an authority figure during a crisis can ever be critisized, no matter how improper or incorrect.
She further degenerates into stating some irrelevant fact about guantanamo being considered a normal minimum security prison, as if that means anything. She tries to attack the young man's credibility by pointing out bits of information of which he was not aware. The young men were clearly underinformed, but that does nothing to strengthen her position.
The "trials" that the military commissions act attempted to put through were sham trials, which allowed information gathered with the use of "coercive" methods, such as long periods of sleep depravation in stress positions naked for over a week, as evidence. A person in that state might confess to anything to make that treatment end, and that confession could be used to put them to death.
"You had to be there, you have no idea what pressure was on us"
How quickly (conveniently?) you forget. The country was in shock. We demanded assurance that 9/11 would not recur AND retaliation for the terrorist attacks. Congress, including the Loon brigade, were not only willing participants on those issues, they were advocates of them. The GW administration gave us both.
Exactly what bounds of authority did the administration overstep? If youre going to critique what the SoS said by bring talking points into your argument, how about elaborating on the exact laws that were violated.
She further degenerates into stating some irrelevant fact about guantanamo being considered a normal minimum security prison, as if that means anything.
Guantanamo was a minimum security prison, wasnt it? In a high security prison the prisoners would have been locked-down 23 hours a day and had minimal or no contact with other prisoners. Im no authority on this but I recall seeing numerous pictures over the years of those guys socializing in the prison yard.
She tries to attack the young man's credibility by pointing out bits of information of which he was not aware. The young men were clearly underinformed, but that does nothing to strengthen her position.
Jr. (the school boy), continually attacked her with Loon rhetoric and she responded. She made an observation that was correct. You make that same observation in the following sentence of your post. So much for those high standards you blathered about in your opening comment.
The "trials" that the military commissions act attempted to put through were sham trials, which allowed information gathered with the use of "coercive" methods, such as long periods of sleep depravation in stress positions naked for over a week, as evidence.
Finally, you get around to the real point of your attack on Rice.
However, you overlook the fact that the Bush administration used FDRs military commission, established in 1942 to try 8 German terrorists for attempting to blow-up US assets, as his model. Say, didnt we hang or electrocute those guys?
As to your talking point that information was gathered form the terrorists using what the Bush admin termed "advanced interrogation techniques", I think you've gotten all the mileage you're going to get out of that mule, because nobodys denying it. The only question that remains is: Was it legal. Rice stated in that video that she believes it was. The onus is on your kind to prove that it wasnt.
I'm not a fan of using torture to extract information from terrorists, but I'm even less a fan of watching American people jump to their death from the 80th floor of burning buildings that terrorists just smashed commercial jetliners into or Americans having to seal their own fate by attacking terrorists who would have otherwise smashed another commercial flight into yet another building in their effort to kill as many Americans as possible. When I compare the atrocities the terrorists committed to the what the Bush admin did, the scale weighs in on the side of the GW administration.
Perhaps we should give them a simple choice in the future: "Talk, or I kill ya", or how about "Torture or death, you decide"?
Those two guys, especially the first one, remind me so much of some of the people here.
3,000 people died. Justice department gave clearance.
It was not torture.
You can't go back five years and say the law was wrong then and prosecute.
My, my, such idiocy. We hung Germans that claimed "Orders are orders". But our own people lack such a moral compass that they cannot be expected to realize that what they are doing is illegal and immoral.
I hope that someday some of you that are endorsing this type of illegal and immoral actions get to experiance them directly.
I hope that someday some of you who are convinced that these type of actions are illegal never get to experience the loss of a loved one to terrorism because this action wasn't taken.
My, my, such idiocy. We hung Germans that claimed "Orders are orders". But our own people lack such a moral compass that they cannot be expected to realize that what they are doing is illegal and immoral.
I hope that someday some of you that are endorsing this type of illegal and immoral actions get to experiance them directly.
I hope that someday some of you who are convinced that these type of actions are illegal never get to experience the loss of a loved one to terrorism because this action wasn't taken.
And you are a damned fool. How would you prove that such a thing happened? Just more obfuscation of the fact that we commited War Crimes.
I hope that someday some of you who are convinced that these type of actions are illegal never get to experience the loss of a loved one to terrorism because this action wasn't taken.
And you are a damned fool. How would you prove that such a thing happened? Just more obfuscation of the fact that we commited War Crimes.
It was already determined that other attacks were prevented.
And you are a damned fool. How would you prove that such a thing happened? Just more obfuscation of the fact that we commited War Crimes.
It was already determined that other attacks were prevented.
didn't obama even admit that
It was already determined that other attacks were prevented.
didn't obama even admit that
Why yes, yes he did.
no, rockhead, we didntMy, my, such idiocy. We hung Germans that claimed "Orders are orders". But our own people lack such a moral compass that they cannot be expected to realize that what they are doing is illegal and immoral.
I hope that someday some of you that are endorsing this type of illegal and immoral actions get to experiance them directly.
I hope that someday some of you who are convinced that these type of actions are illegal never get to experience the loss of a loved one to terrorism because this action wasn't taken.
And you are a damned fool. How would you prove that such a thing happened? Just more obfuscation of the fact that we commited War Crimes.
I hope that someday some of you who are convinced that these type of actions are illegal never get to experience the loss of a loved one to terrorism because this action wasn't taken.
And you are a damned fool. How would you prove that such a thing happened? Just more obfuscation of the fact that we commited War Crimes.
It was already determined that other attacks were prevented.
are you willing to store some of those things they DID find in Iraq in your back yard?And you are a damned fool. How would you prove that such a thing happened? Just more obfuscation of the fact that we commited War Crimes.
It was already determined that other attacks were prevented.
Really? The perpatrators of the crime of torture states that their crimes prevented another attack. But offer no specifics or proof. And you believe them? I have some Iraqi WMD to sell you.
