President Obama DERELICT at his number 1 responsibilty

[sealybobo]

So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

So your answer is, yes, you'd sacrifice American principles like due process, innocent til proven guilty, right to counsel, trials to prove guilt to save someone's life. I hope you enjoy living in your fascist state.

Please provide the post where I've said this. Thanks.

You said it right here:

You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no?

You have come up with a fantasy scenerio that doesn't apply to one fucking captive of ours. You found NOTHING from torture. You've been lied to stupid. Turns out, we catch way more flies with honey than with vinegar. Pissing their Koran, making them be naked, waterboarding, all that shit did was make you right wingers feel good about yourselves. You are truly pussies.

And, doing this means you sacraficed American principles. GUILTY. You should go to jail with Bush and Cheney and Rummy and Condy.

 

[Maple]

is as furious about the release of those memo's by President Obama as I am. As I have stated earlier this isn't going away, he has angered members of his own party by going against the advise of his CIA director Leon Panetta and 4 former directors of the CIA.

Pat Kadel is huge, he is a democratic strategist and stated that Obama has made a serious blunder because if there is another terrorist attack where Americans are killed either here or in the World it will come back to haunt Obama. He inferred that this president is a weak president who caved into the extreme left of his party. I bet that he wishes he had his vote back along with millions of other Obama voters.

This will derail Obama's agenda. His own party will be distancing themselves from him because they don't want to go down with him.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

So your answer is, yes, you'd sacrifice American principles like due process, innocent til proven guilty, right to counsel, trials to prove guilt to save someone's life. I hope you enjoy living in your fascist state.

Please provide the post where I've said this. Thanks.

You said it right here:

You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no?

You have come up with a fantasy scenerio that doesn't apply to one fucking captive of ours. You found NOTHING from torture. You've been lied to stupid. Turns out, we catch way more flies with honey than with vinegar. Pissing their Koran, making them be naked, waterboarding, all that shit did was make you right wingers feel good about yourselves. You are truly pussies.

And, doing this means you sacraficed American principles. GUILTY. You should go to jail with Bush and Cheney and Rummy and Condy.

you're forgetting a simple fact BooBoo. terrorists who are not US citizens are not protected by the US Constitution so their "due process" can be defined however we want it to be defined.

 

[sealybobo]

is as furious about the release of those memo's by President Obama as I am. As I have stated earlier this isn't going away, he has angered members of his own party by going against the advise of his CIA director Leon Panetta and 4 former directors of the CIA.

Pat Kadel is huge, he is a democratic strategist and stated that Obama has made a serious blunder because if there is another terrorist attack where Americans are killed either here or in the World it will come back to haunt Obama. He inferred that this president is a weak president who caved into the extreme left of his party. I bet that he wishes he had his vote back along with millions of other Obama voters.

This will derail Obama's agenda. His own party will be distancing themselves from him because they don't want to go down with him.

1. Never heard of him.

2. Abu Grabe made us less safe. Where were you back then?

3. The information was already out there.

4. You're a hack.

 

[sealybobo]

Please provide the post where I've said this. Thanks.

You said it right here:

You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no?

You have come up with a fantasy scenerio that doesn't apply to one fucking captive of ours. You found NOTHING from torture. You've been lied to stupid. Turns out, we catch way more flies with honey than with vinegar. Pissing their Koran, making them be naked, waterboarding, all that shit did was make you right wingers feel good about yourselves. You are truly pussies.

And, doing this means you sacraficed American principles. GUILTY. You should go to jail with Bush and Cheney and Rummy and Condy.

you're forgetting a simple fact BooBoo. terrorists who are not US citizens are not protected by the US Constitution so their "due process" can be defined however we want it to be defined.

Geneva Conventions.

Why are you afraid to prosecute them? Got nothing on them?

I just love it that exposing Bush crimes is making us less safe.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Those were questions in the threads you said you read. But feel free to clarify.

Please provide the post where I've said this. Better?

Sorry, been down this road already, all this is repetitive and been covered in the threads I cited. I don't feel like spending hours of retyping the same blather, particularly for someone who's shown they were too lazy to read it.

If you have something new to add I'll consider it, but otherwise I don't feel like rehashing.

Maybe someone else will play.

No, it's because I never said "you'd sacrifice American principles like due process, innocent til proven guilty, right to counsel, trials to prove guilt to save someone's life."

 

[Skull Pilot]

You said it right here:

You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no?

You have come up with a fantasy scenerio that doesn't apply to one fucking captive of ours. You found NOTHING from torture. You've been lied to stupid. Turns out, we catch way more flies with honey than with vinegar. Pissing their Koran, making them be naked, waterboarding, all that shit did was make you right wingers feel good about yourselves. You are truly pussies.

And, doing this means you sacraficed American principles. GUILTY. You should go to jail with Bush and Cheney and Rummy and Condy.

you're forgetting a simple fact BooBoo. terrorists who are not US citizens are not protected by the US Constitution so their "due process" can be defined however we want it to be defined.

Geneva Conventions.

Why are you afraid to prosecute them? Got nothing on them?

I just love it that exposing Bush crimes is making us less safe.

I'm not afraid of terrorists BooBoo. But there is a very big difference between gathering intelligence and interrogating for evidence to be used in a trial.

And I do not consider the interrogation techniques to be torture.

tell me which of the ten techniques besides waterboarding, because we already know where you stand on that one, is torture and why.

here's the list
Interrogation Techniques - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

 

[Zoom-boing]

You said it right here:

You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no? (my question to Irieman)

does not equal this:

"you'd sacrifice American principles like due process, innocent til proven guilty, right to counsel, trials to prove guilt to save someone's life"

And, doing this means you sacraficed American principles. GUILTY. You should go to jail with Bush and Cheney and Rummy and Condy.

By disallowing harsh interrogation techniques Obama is sacrificing innocent American lives. Guilty.

 

[Iriemon]

Please provide the post where I've said this. Better?

Sorry, been down this road already, all this is repetitive and been covered in the threads I cited. I don't feel like spending hours of retyping the same blather, particularly for someone who's shown they were too lazy to read it.

If you have something new to add I'll consider it, but otherwise I don't feel like rehashing.

Maybe someone else will play.

No, it's because I never said "you'd sacrifice American principles like due process, innocent til proven guilty, right to counsel, trials to prove guilt to save someone's life."

No, its because I don't feel like rehashing the same blather for the next four hours.

You got anything new to add?

 

[Maple]

Aint gonna happen, he stepped in it big time and now the administration is worried that this is going to slow down his agenda. You libs think this guy is smart? I have never seen anything as stupid as this by any previous President.

Release documents against the advise of his current CIA director Leon Panetta and 4 other CIA directors that give out information to our enemies, which makes our allies reluctant to share any information with us because he is a blabber mouth. Great move Obama, you opened that can of worms and you ain't gonna be able to stuff them back in that can..

Pelosi and Patrick Lehey want to go through with this interogation- be careful what you wish for, Pelosi knew all along what was going on. Plus it would show that waterboarding worked and prevented further attacks as all of the above CIA directors have stated including George Tenet a Clinton appointee. ROCK ON OBAMA.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Sorry, been down this road already, all this is repetitive and been covered in the threads I cited. I don't feel like spending hours of retyping the same blather, particularly for someone who's shown they were too lazy to read it.

If you have something new to add I'll consider it, but otherwise I don't feel like rehashing.

Maybe someone else will play.

No, it's because I never said "you'd sacrifice American principles like due process, innocent til proven guilty, right to counsel, trials to prove guilt to save someone's life."

No, its because I don't feel like rehashing the same blather for the next four hours.

You got anything new to add?

Wrong. You put words in my mouth that I never said. Period.

 

[Iriemon]

No, it's because I never said "you'd sacrifice American principles like due process, innocent til proven guilty, right to counsel, trials to prove guilt to save someone's life."

No, its because I don't feel like rehashing the same blather for the next four hours.

You got anything new to add?

Wrong. You put words in my mouth that I never said. Period.

Alright. I'm bored. I'll play since you are so eager.

You asked me whether you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

And based on your answer, I take it that you would not be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives for the sake of a rule against torture, right?

 

[Zoom-boing]

No, its because I don't feel like rehashing the same blather for the next four hours.

You got anything new to add?

Wrong. You put words in my mouth that I never said. Period.

Alright. I'm bored. I'll play since you are so eager.

You asked me whether you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

And based on your answer, I take it that you would not be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives for the sake of a rule against torture, right?

Not eager to play anything IM; I understand your viewpoint. You believe that innocent American lives are the price we have to pay in order to remain that 'shinning light on the hill' and harsh interrogation techniques should be abandoned as you believe it tarnishes our country. (Since you never stated otherwise when I asked you this I am assuming this is your belief. If I'm wrong, please correct me.) I believe that the United States should do whatever it takes, including utilizing harsh interrogation techniques, in order to gain intel that could save innocent American lives.

What I got annoyed at you for was putting words in my mouth. You do it a lot and then either play dumb or leave the thread. And before you ask, no I'm not wading through threads and posts to find where you've done this; you've been called out on it several times by other posters. It's old.

 

[Iriemon]

Wrong. You put words in my mouth that I never said. Period.

Alright. I'm bored. I'll play since you are so eager.

You asked me whether you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

And based on your answer, I take it that you would not be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives for the sake of a rule against torture, right?

Not eager to play anything IM; I understand your viewpoint. You believe that innocent American lives are the price we have to pay in order to remain that 'shinning light on the hill' and harsh interrogation techniques should be abandoned as you believe it tarnishes our country. (Since you never stated otherwise when I asked you this I am assuming this is your belief. If I'm wrong, please correct me.) I believe that the United States should do whatever it takes, including utilizing harsh interrogation techniques, in order to gain intel that could save innocent American lives.

What I got annoyed at you for was putting words in my mouth. You do it a lot and then either play dumb or leave the thread. And before you ask, no I'm not wading through threads and posts to find where you've done this; you've been called out on it several times by other posters. It's old.

Sorry to annoy you, but no less than you were willing to put words in my mouth: "So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives."

Goose/gander, eh?

 

[knightowl]

Hmm....

Maple: please stop. You blast name callers in one post and proceed to call obama names in every single post, and there are alot. It makes conservatives look stupid. I have deep concerns about Obama's policies, but I'd almost swear your trying to brainwash us, I imagine into thinking Obama fell off the short bus. (Naive imho, but not dumb). Make your point and move on. You can't convince everybody.

Iriemon/Zoomboing/Others: Despite some derailment with petty wordplays, you guys have reached upon several main issues that seem to be the primary points of debate:


1.) Are the techniques in question, actually torture, or just hasher methods of interrogation?

2.) Does the release of this information "tip our hand" too much toward those who seek to harm us?

3.) 1.) Can the situation call for abandoning our usual moral principles against enemies, and utilize any means necessary in a noble attempt to save american lives?

Irrelevant note: Torture is ineffective. This is naive. To be sure, nothing is ever 100%, but a little duress can do wonders to cough up the goods. Some people here seem to have the belief that if we ask the terrorists nicely they'll tell us everything about their friends. If you believe this, you vastly underestimate their commitment, which is impressively extreme.


My answers to the above questions:

1.) No. The welfare and lasting health of the detainees was preserved and watched. The used psychology against the detainees, not pain. That's like saying Fear Factor is torture.

2.) Yes it does. Sometimes its not what you will do, but the FEAR of what you will do that is most effective. Releasing this info was a head scratcher to me, as its only purpose seems to be to satisfy the bloodlust of the Bush/GOP haters. Giving potential detainees a heads up as to exactly how far we will go, makes interrogations nearly pointless going forward. I agree with others here that it also has to put doubt in the minds of our allies as to whether they can trust us to keep their secrets. Again, not sure exactly what Obama was seeking to gain here, as it does actually seem to be him pandering to the far-left. The witchhunt has begun.

3.) Reading here has shifted my opinion due to some good points by Iriemon. As an ideal I think he/she has a point here that torture will rally support for the enemy, not the US. Even the appearance of torture is bad in this regard. It fuels the hatred of enemies and the doubts of our allies. Sure, it may save lives in the here and now, but what is the cost down the road? Will the thousand lives saved today be worth the tens of thousands in a future war that could have been averted? I think we can have our principles AND save innocent american lives. The saying "An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind" applies here. In the interest of honesty though, I'd have to say that if it was my family in danger, I would be a hypocrite and jump through any hurdle, take out anyone, torture anybody to protect them. I'm not sure if that clouds my answer or not, but there it is.


Sidebar to Irie: I disagree that our American ideals will win over there religious beliefs. I'm not sure how you expect this to happen, and would love to hear a rational explanation for it. In a democratic society, I'd agree. But in the freedom-surpressed middle east, they seem to be going backwards to MORE extremism... not more freedoms. There freaks and tyrants are reverred as prophets, instead of laughed out or locked up. Without the freedom to embrace other ideas, how do we expect our ideas to take hold?


Don't hate my criticisms here, I'm just responding as a reader.... Love peace and all that stuff

 

[Zoom-boing]

Alright. I'm bored. I'll play since you are so eager.

You asked me whether you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

And based on your answer, I take it that you would not be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives for the sake of a rule against torture, right?

Not eager to play anything IM; I understand your viewpoint. You believe that innocent American lives are the price we have to pay in order to remain that 'shinning light on the hill' and harsh interrogation techniques should be abandoned as you believe it tarnishes our country. (Since you never stated otherwise when I asked you this I am assuming this is your belief. If I'm wrong, please correct me.) I believe that the United States should do whatever it takes, including utilizing harsh interrogation techniques, in order to gain intel that could save innocent American lives.

What I got annoyed at you for was putting words in my mouth. You do it a lot and then either play dumb or leave the thread. And before you ask, no I'm not wading through threads and posts to find where you've done this; you've been called out on it several times by other posters. It's old.

Sorry to annoy you, but no less than you were willing to put words in my mouth: "So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives."

Goose/gander, eh?

When asked a simple yes or no question rather than answer yes or no, you listed post after post from another thread.

Guess you missed this from my previous post: Since you never stated otherwise when I asked you ["You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no?"], I am assuming you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

No goose, no gander.

 

[Iriemon]

Not eager to play anything IM; I understand your viewpoint. You believe that innocent American lives are the price we have to pay in order to remain that 'shinning light on the hill' and harsh interrogation techniques should be abandoned as you believe it tarnishes our country. (Since you never stated otherwise when I asked you this I am assuming this is your belief. If I'm wrong, please correct me.) I believe that the United States should do whatever it takes, including utilizing harsh interrogation techniques, in order to gain intel that could save innocent American lives.

What I got annoyed at you for was putting words in my mouth. You do it a lot and then either play dumb or leave the thread. And before you ask, no I'm not wading through threads and posts to find where you've done this; you've been called out on it several times by other posters. It's old.

Sorry to annoy you, but no less than you were willing to put words in my mouth: "So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives."

Goose/gander, eh?

When asked a simple yes or no question rather than answer yes or no, you listed post after post from another thread.

Guess you missed this from my previous post: Since you never stated otherwise when I asked you ["You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no?"], I am assuming you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

No goose, no gander.

It's not a simply yes or no answer. That's why I referred you to the other thread.

You say you wouldn't be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. So I'm assuming you'd be willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Two can play the little silly hypo with a yes/no answer game.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Sorry to annoy you, but no less than you were willing to put words in my mouth: "So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives."

Goose/gander, eh?

When asked a simple yes or no question rather than answer yes or no, you listed post after post from another thread.

Guess you missed this from my previous post: Since you never stated otherwise when I asked you ["You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no?"], I am assuming you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

No goose, no gander.

It's not a simply yes or no answer. That's why I referred you to the other thread.

You say you wouldn't be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. So I'm assuming you'd be willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Two can play the little silly hypo with a yes/no answer game.

I already answered this when you asked me previously. It may have been another thread (sorry, don't remember). No, I do not believe in what you posted above. The homes broken into without warrants -- if substantial intel was already in the possession of the CIA, possibly. Not sure.

It is a simple yes or no question. If we had a terrorist who had intel on an impending attack on the U.S., would you be willing to use harsh interrogation techniques on them in order to save American lives?

Why do you think questions like this are silly and hypothetical? 9/11 was a 'hypothetical' on 9/10. I believe 'hope for the best but prepare for the worst' applies.

 

[Iriemon]

When asked a simple yes or no question rather than answer yes or no, you listed post after post from another thread.

Guess you missed this from my previous post: Since you never stated otherwise when I asked you ["You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no?"], I am assuming you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

No goose, no gander.

It's not a simply yes or no answer. That's why I referred you to the other thread.

You say you wouldn't be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. So I'm assuming you'd be willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Two can play the little silly hypo with a yes/no answer game.

I already answered this when you asked me previously. It may have been another thread (sorry, don't remember). No, I do not believe in what you posted above. The homes broken into without warrants -- if substantial intel was already in the possession of the CIA, possibly. Not sure.

Wait a minute. You were just bitching I referred you to other threads, when I gave you the specific thread and post numbers.

And now you are vaguely referring me to some thread without answering the questions.

Are we going to play by the same rules? Or is this where I'm entitled to put words in your mouth as you did mine?

Would you be willing to willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life?

Simple yes or no question.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's not a simply yes or no answer. That's why I referred you to the other thread.

You say you wouldn't be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. So I'm assuming you'd be willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Two can play the little silly hypo with a yes/no answer game.

I already answered this when you asked me previously. It may have been another thread (sorry, don't remember). No, I do not believe in what you posted above. The homes broken into without warrants -- if substantial intel was already in the possession of the CIA, possibly. Not sure.

Wait a minute. You were just bitching I referred you to other threads, when I gave you the specific thread and post numbers.

And now you are vaguely referring me to some thread without answering the questions.

Are we going to play by the same rules? Or is this where I'm entitled to put words in your mouth as you did mine?

Would you be willing to willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life?

Simple yes or no question.

Are you blind? I just did answer your question!!

What is it with you changing things around talking about torturing Americans anyway? Terrorists are the bad guys last I checked.

You still haven't given me a yes or no answer to my question. The more you avoid it the more you appear to be ok with sacrificing American lives.