President Obama DERELICT at his number 1 responsibilty

[Zoom-boing]

We are at war with Terrorists who have an ideology, not just an ideology. Ideology's don't by themselves run airplanes into buildings, just as a hand gun does not pick it self up and shoot someone. It takes people to do those things. 9-11 was not brought on by any torture of anyone. We were totally blinded to what was being plotted against our country because during the time that they were plotting this attack the CIA's hands were tied again. That's why we did not know and were not able to prevent them.

That is not quite true -- obviously the CIA had intellegence because it warned that AQ was planning to hijack plans and bomb buildings in NY just a month before 9-11.

But I agree that intellegence is an area that needed to be improved. That doesn't require adoption of gestapo type tactics, however.

It is clear that we have gone back to a pre 9-11 mindset. The closing of GITMO. Eric Holder is traveling the world trying to get other countries to take these prisoners, no one, wants them. One small country, I forget the name, laughably told him that they would NEVER take these prisoners and if they are so safe now why don't we release them in our own country. 60% of the ones that have been released have joined the jihadist movement again, 2 are responsible for the killing of 50t civilians after they were released. These are NOT nice people. You are NOT going to convince them to be nice, I don't care how hard you try.

I have never supported freeing them. Try them, convict them, and then hang them for all I care. That's the American way. Not locking folks away forever without hearings or trials to prove their guilt.

President Obama sold us down the river on this. You liberals have extremely short memories, you think that you can change the ideology of others, when there is no possiblity of doing that. You forget that these jihadists are out to murder anyone they consider an infidel, that's the rest of us.

Time will tell on this release, but I can assure you that it did not make this country safer when you have 4 former CIA directors including his current one advising against the release of these documents. To me it's an act so reprehensible that I consider it close to traitorous, and it was done by our own President.

Obama has restored our committment to American principles. You are right, it may create a little more risk -- freedom isn't free. But I applaud him and he is moving America in the right direction by standing by our principles. There is a reason AQ leaders and concerned about Obama's popularity. It cuts to the heart of their lifeblood - anti-American hatred.

So 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 the intel that would save innocent American lives. Got it.

 

[Sinatra]

We are at war with Terrorists who have an ideology, not just an ideology. Ideology's don't by themselves run airplanes into buildings, just as a hand gun does not pick it self up and shoot someone. It takes people to do those things. 9-11 was not brought on by any torture of anyone. We were totally blinded to what was being plotted against our country because during the time that they were plotting this attack the CIA's hands were tied again. That's why we did not know and were not able to prevent them.

That is not quite true -- obviously the CIA had intellegence because it warned that AQ was planning to hijack plans and bomb buildings in NY just a month before 9-11.

But I agree that intellegence is an area that needed to be improved. That doesn't require adoption of gestapo type tactics, however.



I have never supported freeing them. Try them, convict them, and then hang them for all I care. That's the American way. Not locking folks away forever without hearings or trials to prove their guilt.

President Obama sold us down the river on this. You liberals have extremely short memories, you think that you can change the ideology of others, when there is no possiblity of doing that. You forget that these jihadists are out to murder anyone they consider an infidel, that's the rest of us.

Time will tell on this release, but I can assure you that it did not make this country safer when you have 4 former CIA directors including his current one advising against the release of these documents. To me it's an act so reprehensible that I consider it close to traitorous, and it was done by our own President.

Obama has restored our committment to American principles. You are right, it may create a little more risk -- freedom isn't free. But I applaud him and he is moving America in the right direction by standing by our principles. There is a reason AQ leaders and concerned about Obama's popularity. It cuts to the heart of their lifeblood - anti-American hatred.

So 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 the intel that would save innocent American lives. Got it.

Remarkable, isn't it?

 

[WillowTree]

That is not quite true -- obviously the CIA had intellegence because it warned that AQ was planning to hijack plans and bomb buildings in NY just a month before 9-11.

But I agree that intellegence is an area that needed to be improved. That doesn't require adoption of gestapo type tactics, however.



I have never supported freeing them. Try them, convict them, and then hang them for all I care. That's the American way. Not locking folks away forever without hearings or trials to prove their guilt.



Obama has restored our committment to American principles. You are right, it may create a little more risk -- freedom isn't free. But I applaud him and he is moving America in the right direction by standing by our principles. There is a reason AQ leaders and concerned about Obama's popularity. It cuts to the heart of their lifeblood - anti-American hatred.

So 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 the intel that would save innocent American lives. Got it.

Remarkable, isn't it?

Scarey as hell too.. DUmb,, really DUmb

 

[Iriemon]

So let me see if I understand the logic being thrown around here...

Some of you say that it's useless to interrogate anyone because it doesn't work ( which has already been proven that it does ) and makes us look like a mean and ugly nation...

I haven't seen one person say that. Cite to who said that?

American principles against torture are not new. The eighth amendment was passed in the 18th century.

We should back the leader of the free world who now has positioned us as an even larger target with no ability to fight back. No ability to thwart attacks. No sense of national pride. No moral obligation to it's own people. The only obligation we hold fast to as of now is to the world. US citizens be damned. Because we have been such a horrible nation for so long, we must now lay down our weapons and accept the beating we deserve and take it with dignity. And, from this, we shall rise up years later, a more understanding and less evil nation with only good will for all and from all.

So, here's the logic I see here...( I use the term VERY lightly ) while we're at it, let's take all the guns from the police. No more tazers, no more night sticks, no more pepper spray, no more riot gear...and for GOD'S SAKE!!! NO MORE LOCK UP...Let's open all the jails that house the killers, rapists, robbers and psychos and let's just be nice to them and hope that they will be nice back and stop killing and raping and robbing and taking our children. Sounds like a wonderful utopia to me.

I haven't seen anyone suggest the extreme changes you refer to.

That's a crock--for years liberals have stated that the "enhanced interrogations technics", do not work.

Liberals have claimed: "They'll just tell you anything they think you want to hear."

I've seen some say torture doesn't work. Maybe even some said "enhanced interrogations technics", do not work. Of course, that is not what you said in your prior post.

YOU WERE WRONG. And you're wrong about waterboarding. Here we have a technic that WORKS--it has been proven to work. It takes a couple of seconds--with no "physical" arm to that terrorist you're trying to protect.

Do you know how the "enhanced interrogations came into play in the first place"? They used it on our TOUGHEST U.S. special forces--that are trained to resist interrogations. They then adopted those procedures--because they work, & they work quickly, with no physical harm.

I've never claimed that torture might not provide useful information.

However, as to your argument that torture is justified because it might yield useful information, that argument was discussed in detail by me and others in these threads, if you are interested in the responses. I don't see the value of regurgitating those posts over again.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...to-info-that-aborted-9-11-style-attac-20.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/74682-torture-poll.html

 

[Iriemon]

So let me see if I understand the logic being thrown around here...

Some of you say that it's useless to interrogate anyone because it doesn't work ( which has already been proven that it does ) and makes us look like a mean and ugly nation...

I haven't seen one person say that. Cite to who said that?

THIS IS STATED VERY CLEARLY IN THE FIRST FEW REPLIES ON THIS THREAD.



American principles against torture are not new. The eighth amendment was passed in the 18th century.

We should back the leader of the free world who now has positioned us as an even larger target with no ability to fight back. No ability to thwart attacks. No sense of national pride. No moral obligation to it's own people. The only obligation we hold fast to as of now is to the world. US citizens be damned. Because we have been such a horrible nation for so long, we must now lay down our weapons and accept the beating we deserve and take it with dignity. And, from this, we shall rise up years later, a more understanding and less evil nation with only good will for all and from all.

So, here's the logic I see here...( I use the term VERY lightly ) while we're at it, let's take all the guns from the police. No more tazers, no more night sticks, no more pepper spray, no more riot gear...and for GOD'S SAKE!!! NO MORE LOCK UP...Let's open all the jails that house the killers, rapists, robbers and psychos and let's just be nice to them and hope that they will be nice back and stop killing and raping and robbing and taking our children. Sounds like a wonderful utopia to me.

I haven't seen anyone suggest the extreme changes you refer to.

Which extreme changes are you referring to? Disarming the police or disarming the country?

That would be included.

 

[Red Dawn]

So let me see if I understand the logic being thrown around here...

Some of you say that it's useless to interrogate anyone because it doesn't work ( which has already been proven that it does ) and makes us look like a mean and ugly nation...that we should be nice and kind and gentle in hopes that our new found moral standards will somehow keep those who have demonstrated hatred for us for decades to not kill us anymore.

How am I doing so far?

You're lying. No one ever suggested we shouldn't interrogate prisoners.

Do you enjoy having George Bush's dick down your throat? I think you do.

We should back the leader of the free world who now has positioned us as an even larger target with no ability to fight back. No ability to thwart attacks. No sense of national pride. No moral obligation to it's own people. The only obligation we hold fast to as of now is to the world. US citizens be damned. Because we have been such a horrible nation for so long, we must now lay down our weapons and accept the beating we deserve and take it with dignity. And, from this, we shall rise up years later, a more understanding and less evil nation with only good will for all and from all.

So, here's the logic I see here...( I use the term VERY lightly ) while we're at it, let's take all the guns from the police. No more tazers, no more night sticks, no more pepper spray, no more riot gear...and for GOD'S SAKE!!! NO MORE LOCK UP...Let's open all the jails that house the killers, rapists, robbers and psychos and let's just be nice to them and hope that they will be nice back and stop killing and raping and robbing and taking our children. Sounds like a wonderful utopia to me.

Do you enjoy trolling, and having karl rove's dick up your ass?

 

[Maple]

so it must mean that you have NO point to make. I just love how you liberals can't debate the facts so you get defensive and turn your debate into name calling and alot of vulgarity. Keep it up, but anyone who can read at a 2nd grade level see's right through your smoke screen. Your stupidity is demonstrated by your previous post and is on full display.

 

[Maple]

is not weather waterboarding is torture or not, that can be debated until the cows come home and there will still be no agreement on this issue.

THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT OUR PRESIDENT WENT AGAINST THE ADVISE OF 4 FORMER CIA DIRECTORS INCLUDING HIS OWN DIRECTOR AND RELEASED TOP SECRET INFOMATION. Fellow citizens our NATIONAL SECURITY has just been sold down the river by OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF who has sworn to protect this country and it's citizens at all costs. THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE.

 

[Iriemon]

so it must mean that you have NO point to make. I just love how you liberals can't debate the facts so you get defensive and turn your debate into name calling and alot of vulgarity. ...

LOL, you reckon its just liberals who do that? Or should I cite you a few dozen posts from some of our conservative friends?

 

[Iriemon]

is not weather waterboarding is torture or not, that can be debated until the cows come home and there will still be no agreement on this issue.

THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT OUR PRESIDENT WENT AGAINST THE ADVISE OF 4 FORMER CIA DIRECTORS INCLUDING HIS OWN DIRECTOR AND RELEASED TOP SECRET INFOMATION. Fellow citizens our NATIONAL SECURITY has just been sold down the river by OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF who has sworn to protect this country and it's citizens at all costs. THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE.

It's not surprising that 4 former CIA directors were against it. Most CIA directors have been appointed by or worked with Republicans, and their natural inclination would be to protect their buddies in the club.

What NS citizens have been sold down the river, other than for torturing people?

I don't think the president swears to protect citizens at all costs. I hope not. Some costs aren't worth the marginal protection you might get.

 

[Maple]

I have seen those posts. When anyone calls names or uses vulgarity it does nothing but discredit their views. We can all agree to disagree, but when you name call or use vulgarity you just essentially diminished the value of your point of view and it becomes worthless. Why bother.

Another thing about water boarding, and the argument for and against it. People react differently to different things. I don't like snakes, all you would have to do to get me to blab is show me a snake. Would that be considered torture???? I don't like some music, would it be considered torture to make me listen to very loud music that drives me nuts???
I think that I would prefer to be waterboarded rather than thrown in a room with a snake or made to listen for hours to loud hard metal music. It's all in the mind of the beholder.

That's why I am saying that the real issue is the FACT that this preident realeased TOP SECURITY information against the advise of 4 former directors of the CIA including his current one to appease the ACLU and move on. org. As I stated in a previous post, our allies in this war on terror will be reluctant to share information with us, because he has now proven himself not trustworthy with this information and they do not want their operations exposed.

HE DID THIS UNDER THE GUIZE OF TRANSPERANCY. THAT IS NOT PRESIDENTIAL AND IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THIS COUNTRY OR IT'S CITIZENS.

 

[Zoom-boing]

is not weather waterboarding is torture or not, that can be debated until the cows come home and there will still be no agreement on this issue.

THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT OUR PRESIDENT WENT AGAINST THE ADVISE OF 4 FORMER CIA DIRECTORS INCLUDING HIS OWN DIRECTOR AND RELEASED TOP SECRET INFOMATION. Fellow citizens our NATIONAL SECURITY has just been sold down the river by OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF who has sworn to protect this country and it's citizens at all costs. THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE.

It's not surprising that 4 former CIA directors were against it. Most CIA directors have been appointed by or worked with Republicans, and their natural inclination would be to protect their buddies in the club.

What NS citizens have been sold down the river, other than for torturing people?

I don't think the president swears to protect citizens at all costs. I hope not. Some costs aren't worth the marginal protection you might get.

So 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 the intel that would save innocent American lives. Got it.

 

[WorldAHope]

Interviewed a retired CIA director, forgot his name, but he is flaming mad about Obama releasing the TOP SECRET documents on interogation techniques and stated that we are much less safe because of him doing that.

He stated that it is akin to asking our soldiers to fight a war in a certain country and then when the next administration comes in to prosecute the soldiers for following orders. He was firm and resolved about the fact that Obama has now tied the CIA's hands and that they will no longer do the things that need to be done to keep this country safe. He was resolute when he stated that this will cause more terrorism not less and that Americans are much less safe.

He was disgusted that the Commander in Chief, POLITICIZED NATIONAL SECURITY AND THAT HE HAS NOW PUT AMERICANS AT RISK.

What an absolute idiot this President is turning out to be, in less than 100 days he has outspent president Bush's 8 years and undone many of the things that kept this country safe from another attack. I do not feel safer and this is not going to dissapear, Obama will rue the day that he felt it necessary to go against the experts in this field and ignore his own director of the CIA.

US Army Counter Insurgency Field Manual:

Abuse of detained persons is immoral, illegal, and unprofessional.

Those who engage in cruel or inhuman treatment of prisoners betray the standards of the profession of arms and U.S. laws. They are subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Geneva Conventions, as well as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, agree on unacceptable interrogating techniques.

Torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment is never a morally permissible option, even if lives depend on gaining information.

No exceptional circumstances permit the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Only personnel trained and certified to interrogate can conduct interrogations. They use legal, approved methods of convincing enemy prisoners of war and detainees to give their cooperation. Interrogation sources are detainees, including enemy prisoners of war


7-44. To the extent that the work of interrogators is indispensable to fulfilling the state's obligation to secure its citizens' lives and liberties, conducting interrogations is a moral obligation. The methods used, however, must reflect the Nation's commitment to human dignity and international humanitarian law. A commander's need for information remains valid and can be met while observing relevant regulations and ethical standards. Acting morally does not necessarily mean that leaders give up obtaining critical information. Acting morally does mean that leaders must relinquish certain methods of obtaining information, even if that decision requires Soldiers and Marines to take greater risk.


Lose Moral Legitimacy, Lose the War


During the Algerian war of independence between 1954 and 1962, French leaders decided to permit torture against suspected insurgents. Though they were aware that it was against the law and morality of war, they argued that-

This was a new form of war and these rules did not apply.
The threat the enemy represented, communism, was a great evil that justified extraordinary means.
The application of torture against insurgents was measured and nongratuitous.

This official condoning of torture on the part of French Army leadership had several negative consequences. It empowered the moral legitimacy of the opposition, undermined the French moral legitimacy, and caused internal fragmentation among serving officers that led to an unsuccessful coup attempt in 1962. In the end, failure to comply with moral and legal restrictions against torture severely undermined French efforts and contributed to their loss despite several significant military victories. Illegal and immoral activities made the counterinsurgents extremely vulnerable to enemy propaganda inside Algeria among the Muslim population, as well as in the United Nations and the French media. These actions also degraded the ethical climate throughout the French Army. France eventually recognized Algerian independence in July 1963.


US Army Counter Insurgency Manual, Chapter 7, Sections 7-42 to 7-44

So now we're going to give top interrogation officers of the CIA & all other intelligence agencies the "field manual" that are given to U.S. soldiers just "out of boot camp" suggestions on how to interogate top level operatives of Al Queda. YEP--you bet. "The army field manual." In case you didn't know CIA interrogation officials--are not in the field--in uniform--directly fighting with the enemy. They are experts at what they do--"interrogation".

Then the audacity to compare the French & their torture to waterboarding.

You liberals still do not seem to understand--this is no enemy like we have ever gone to war with before. They blow up their own kids----"what enemy in history has ever done that?

So again--with your "superior" knowledge--let us know what terrorist was EVER tortured prior to 9/11--by the CIA or any other American intelligence agency?

US military occuaption and battling insurgents in the Phiilpines after defeating Spain in 1898.
It was difficult, dirty, nasty littel affair that went on for a couple years.
Teddy Roosevelt summarily sacked the general and staff in charge of teh operation
after he became President. The nation was shocked that 'our boys' could behave in such a savage,
disgraceful manner. The McKinley and Roosevelt administrations tried to keep a news leak lid on what was going on and what had happened because it was so messy and nasty. And illegal.

American soldiers were tried and convicted of "water torture" and other atrocities against Philipino civilians and INSURGENTS held as detainees, or simpy executed in gruesome ways meant to terrorize the population.

And them there was WW2, and Vietnam......


http://www.shvoong.com/humanities/h_history/1781489-american-occupation-philippines-1898-1912/

The Filipinos were no match against the disciplined Americans in pitched battle: the kill ratio was 16:1. Most of the natives who did not know how to shoot removed the front sight of their rifles; consequently, their aim was too high and they fired over the heads of the Americanos. They shifted to guerrilla warfare and a scorched earth policy. Aguinaldo, the Philippine President, ran his government on foot as he fled to the mountains. The Americans found it impossible to distinguish friend from foe since every Filipino in the countrysides carried a bolo (machete) in his waist: in the daytime he could be a peaceful farmer, at night, he could be part of a bolo squad lying in ambush for the Americans. Due to the public uproar over news that the troops were having a hard time, the policy-makers in Washington downplayed the reports, claiming that only a small faction of the insurgents loyal to Aguinaldo were making trouble, that a great majority of the Filipinos desired peace and accepted American rule, that the peace campaign was nothing more than mopping up operations, etc. The military government soon gave way to a civil government while fighting raged on. To prevent the native population from supporting the guerrillas, they were herded inside concentration camps or prohibited from leaving their villages while search- and-destroy operations were conducted against the insurgents. Due to this practice (a precursor of the practice of “hamletting” against the Vietcong), hundreds of thousands of civilians died from starvation and disease. There was the so-called “water torture” which were applied against suspects. Atrocities were allegedly committed by both sides.

 

[WorldAHope]

is not weather waterboarding is torture or not, that can be debated until the cows come home and there will still be no agreement on this issue.

THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT OUR PRESIDENT WENT AGAINST THE ADVISE OF 4 FORMER CIA DIRECTORS INCLUDING HIS OWN DIRECTOR AND RELEASED TOP SECRET INFOMATION. Fellow citizens our NATIONAL SECURITY has just been sold down the river by OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF who has sworn to protect this country and it's citizens at all costs. THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE.

It's not surprising that 4 former CIA directors were against it. Most CIA directors have been appointed by or worked with Republicans, and their natural inclination would be to protect their buddies in the club.

What NS citizens have been sold down the river, other than for torturing people?

I don't think the president swears to protect citizens at all costs. I hope not. Some costs aren't worth the marginal protection you might get.

So 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 the intel that would save innocent American lives. Got it.

How do we 'know' that a detainee has valuable intel about an impending attack against the US ?
Maybe we should torture all detainees, just to be sure. Women and children, and old folks too.
The entire muslim world.

You are living in and commenting from a comic book fantasy world. It is not real.
Either go join up and go to war,become a psy ops or CIA agent, or shut up about what you know NOTHING about.
Let the adults take care of things.
Go back to masturbating as you watch Jack Bauer toture and save the world in syndicated re-runs.

 

[Iriemon]

is not weather waterboarding is torture or not, that can be debated until the cows come home and there will still be no agreement on this issue.

THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT OUR PRESIDENT WENT AGAINST THE ADVISE OF 4 FORMER CIA DIRECTORS INCLUDING HIS OWN DIRECTOR AND RELEASED TOP SECRET INFOMATION. Fellow citizens our NATIONAL SECURITY has just been sold down the river by OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF who has sworn to protect this country and it's citizens at all costs. THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE.

It's not surprising that 4 former CIA directors were against it. Most CIA directors have been appointed by or worked with Republicans, and their natural inclination would be to protect their buddies in the club.

What NS citizens have been sold down the river, other than for torturing people?

I don't think the president swears to protect citizens at all costs. I hope not. Some costs aren't worth the marginal protection you might get.

So 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 the intel that would save innocent American lives. Got it.

Discussions of this argument was addressed previously in these threads, if you're interested in my responses.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...to-info-that-aborted-9-11-style-attac-20.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/74682-torture-poll.html

 

[Maple]

Leon Panetta was Clinton's chief of staff and is our current CIA director under Obama and he advised Obama not to release those memo's

George Tennet-- Director of CIA from July 1997- July of 2004 was another Clinton appointee that also warned Obama against the release of these memos.

This is not a partisan issue, it's a NATIONAL SECURITY issue and Obama blew it right out the window.

 

[Iriemon]

Leon Panetta was Clinton's chief of staff and is our current CIA director under Obama and he advised Obama not to release those memo's

George Tennet-- Director of CIA from July 1997- July of 2004 was another Clinton appointee that also warned Obama against the release of these memos.

This is not a partisan issue, it's a NATIONAL SECURITY issue and Obama blew it right out the window.

Muple,

Other than announcing to the world that the US will no longer condone torture, how has our national security been put at risk?

 

[WillowTree]

Leon Panetta was Clinton's chief of staff and is our current CIA director under Obama and he advised Obama not to release those memo's

George Tennet-- Director of CIA from July 1997- July of 2004 was another Clinton appointee that also warned Obama against the release of these memos.

This is not a partisan issue, it's a NATIONAL SECURITY issue and Obama blew it right out the window.

Muple,

Other than announcing to the world that the US will no longer condone torture, how has our national security been put at risk?

Jackass,, her name is Maple,, but you knew that didn't you.. HYPOCRITE!

 

[Iriemon]

Leon Panetta was Clinton's chief of staff and is our current CIA director under Obama and he advised Obama not to release those memo's

George Tennet-- Director of CIA from July 1997- July of 2004 was another Clinton appointee that also warned Obama against the release of these memos.

This is not a partisan issue, it's a NATIONAL SECURITY issue and Obama blew it right out the window.

Muple,

Other than announcing to the world that the US will no longer condone torture, how has our national security been put at risk?

Jackass ...

Ignored

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's not surprising that 4 former CIA directors were against it. Most CIA directors have been appointed by or worked with Republicans, and their natural inclination would be to protect their buddies in the club.

What NS citizens have been sold down the river, other than for torturing people?

I don't think the president swears to protect citizens at all costs. I hope not. Some costs aren't worth the marginal protection you might get.

So 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 the intel that would save innocent American lives. Got it.

Discussions of this argument was addressed previously in these threads, if you're interested in my responses.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...to-info-that-aborted-9-11-style-attac-20.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/74682-torture-poll.html

I've read through a majority of those posts IM -- couldn't find an answer to what I posted above or to questions I asked last week in a similar thread. I've asked this several different times and you merely avoid an answer and post these links. I won't ask again because I already know your answer. You favor sacrificing innocent American lives rather than water board a terrorist who has intel that could save those same innocent American lives.