Posted on 05/09/2009 3:21:31 AM PDT by Scanian
One of the most controversial issues facing us as a country is the way we view treatment of captured terrorists. One side says we should never use coercive methods to obtain information, even if it would result in saving lives. The other side says we should use some techniques that have already been successfully used to avert catastrophes.
The term, "waterboarding" was introduced to our lexicon when it was revealed that the CIA was using it as a professional interrogation technique. Essentially, it means covering the prisoner's face with a cloth and tying him, face-up, to a board that is inclined downward. Then the interrogator pours water over the prisoner's face, giving the impression that he's drowning. Some have called the practice, torture, while others consider it to be an innocuous, but proven method of learning what terrorists have in store for us and preventing them from accomplishing their horrific goals.
It's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about inflicting pain and excruciating mental distress on other human beings in the pursuit of a noble cause. Civilized people want to believe that there is goodness and decency in all of God's creatures. Perhaps the impala and the wildebeest believe the same thing, until they get pulled down and ripped apart by the hungry lion.
Everything we've learned about terrorist groups like Al Qaeda tells us that they are committed to the destruction of western civilization. When they capture an American they don't waste time with concerns over treatment; they simple saw off the victim's head while he's struggling to survive. In addition, they videotape the savagery and broadcast it to the world as they celebrate their brutality with laughter and gaiety.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
NY POST.com: "'TORTURE' REGRETS CHEER OUR ENEMIES" by Adam Brodsky (SNIPPET: "Our new enemies require us to adopt new standards. But never for a moment should anyone think such changes compromise our moral standing. Self-flagellation and restraint won't make us more noble. But they might just make us more ... dead.") (Updated May 1, 2009, 4:33 am)
FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE.com: "THE BUSH 'TORTURE' LAWYERS: NO BETTER THAN TERRORISTS?" by Joseph Klein (SNIPPET: "Congress adopted this definition in a 1994 law criminalizing torture committed abroad. If Congress had wished to declare waterboarding or the other specific techniques used by the CIA to be included within the law criminalizing torture, they could have done so for the past seven years but did not. This is telling, considering Nancy Pelosi was briefed upon these techniques in detail. Like the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture, she is simply another in the long litany of government officials who seem to revel in their own tortuous reasoning, which invariably ends up protecting terrorists. They deserve to be ignored.") (May 5, 2009)
Experts.FOREIGN POLICY.com: "IRREPARABLE DAMAGE" by Thomas Hegghammer (SNIPPET: "Switch to the jihadi Internet forums, where thousands of radical Islamists log on every day to debate religion, politics, and the latest news from the war on terror. Last week there were debates on all kinds of topics, from swine flu to the financial crisis to the alleged capture of the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. But there was virtually nothing about the torture memos.") (May 4, 2009, 5:10 pm)
WEEKLY STANDARD.com: "PREENING & POSTURING Throwing those who guard us while we sleep to the wolves." by William Kristol (SNIPPET: "The dark and painful chapter we have to fear is rather the one President Obama may be ushering in. This would be a chapter in which politicians preen moralistically as they throw patriotic officials, who helped keep this country safe, to the wolves, and in which national leaders posture politically while endangering the nation's security. The preening is ridiculous, even by the standards of contemporary American politics and American liberalism. Obama fatuously asserts there are no real choices in the real world, just "false choices" that he can magically resolve. He foolishly suggests that even in war we would never have to do anything disagreeable for the sake of our security. He talks baby talk to intelligence officers: "Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That’s how we learn."") (May 4, 2009 Issue)
WEEKLY STANDARD.com - blog: "GOSS: OBAMA DECISION "CROSSED A RED LINE"" -Posted by Stephen F. Hayes (SNIPPET: "Porter Goss, former CIA Director and past chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, blasted the Obama administration for releasing Justice Department memos on harsh interrogation techniques. "For the first time in my experience we've crossed the red line of properly protecting our national security in order to gain partisan political advantage," Goss said in an interview.") (April 23, 2009, 1:53 pm)
CNN.com: Washington - "EX-CIA CHIEF: OBAMA RISKS NATIONAL SECURITY" (SNIPPET: "A former head of the CIA slammed President Obama on Sunday for releasing four Bush-era memos, saying the new president has compromised national security.") (Updated April 19, 2009, 7:44 p.m. EDT)
Online.WSJ.com: "THE PRESIDENT TIES HIS OWN HANDS ON TERROR The point of interrogation is intelligence, not confession." by Michael Hayden and Michael B. Mukasey (April 17, 2009)
CIA.gov: "MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR: RELEASE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OPINIONS Statement to Employees by Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon E. Panetta on the Release of Department of Justice Opinions" (April 16, 2009)
FOX NEWS.com: "EX-CIA CHIEF CRITICIZES RELEASE OF INTERROGATION MEMOS Former CIA Director Michael Hayden says release of the memos will give terrorists a precise guide for what to expect in a CIA interrogation if those methods are ever approved for use again" (April 16, 2009)
FOX NEWS.com: "OBAMA MAY RELEASE DETAILS OF CIA's INTERROGATION METHODS USED ON TERROR SUSPECTS" by Brit Hume (SNIPPET: "The president's decision will tell us much about him.") (April 15, 2009)
piong
So few words, so much truth.
Ask these question: 1- What measurable result has torture produced? 2- What does one become when one denigrates the person, identity or physical body another human being? 3- At one point in the heart does the honorable restraining of the enemy become the wicked intent to mayhem, butchery and malice, i.e. bloodlust? And, finally, 4- what effect does this have on the innocent? The strongest people in history; Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and their followers, have already proven to the world, that standing faithfully, righteously, openhanded and courageous in one’s higher individual integrity is much greater than submitting to the lower instincts of fear.
Positions like yours are DANGEROUSLY naive. Not just naive. DANGEROUSLY naive, as you would let innocents die horrible deaths rather then cause physical pain to evil people. Actually let me go further, your position isn’t just naive, its immoral.
The use of the word "torture" is tendentious, but to address your question: Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, in his letter released April 16, said that valuable information had indeed been secured through the enhanced interrogation techniques in question. Somehow the MSM failed to notice this detail however.
What does one become when one denigrates the person, identity or physical body another human being?
What do you think becomes of a person who does violence to another? Have you ever heard of postcombat PTSD? It's a nasty world and the men who look out for the rest of us pay a heavy price. The alternative is slavery and death for everyone.
At one point in the heart does the honorable restraining of the enemy become the wicked intent to mayhem...It happens, just as it happens on the battlefield and the excesses of the occasional rogue cop on the street. It's a fallen world and people are subject to passions they ought not indulge. It's called the human condition. But the alternative is to be sheep led to the slaughter.
Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and their followers, have already proven to the world, that standing faithfully,...etc.
I'm no Bible scholar but I don't recall Christ ever leading resistance against the Roman centurions for their conduct in oppressing their subjects. He had bigger issues in mind. The others faced opposition that was downright humane, divided within itself and even halfhearted, compared to what we face in the Islamofascist threat.
Back to the top-- Can we handle the truth?
These Arab butchers would saw off their heads, film them, and put them on display on the internet.
1. Christ was crucified for his deeds.
2. MLK was shot dead in Memphis for his deeds.
3. Ghandi (were he an American) would be jailed today as a child molester for his relationship with an adolescent child.
Nope, we should never "turn the other cheek" on terrorists.
We should hunt them down, capture or kill them all. Those captured should be tortured til they squeal like little pigs. Once all that can be gained from their torture is complete, then they should be castrated spot on eliminating any risk they could pro-create. Then they should be prosecuted and judged. Once judged and proven guilty, escorted immediately from the court room, to be hanged by a rope from the gallows.
Any questions?
I turned on Fox News at 9:50 this morning just in time to hear about “guyliner,” the latest innovation where men will wear eyeliner along with their tats, earrings, and bling.
Ten minutes later came the Saturday business block which was why I had really turned the TV on. I turned it back off after another ten minutes. Amidst the usual shouting I heard the loudest voice, belonging to a Dim who was arguing that 60 of the Gitmo thugs were completely innocent and should be released with reparations.
Sometimes I can’t take it anymore. I’m now listening to Frank Cordell and his orchestra on the “Easy Listening” channel.
The philosophy of any of those three would have resulted in our country being overrun by Nazis in the 40’s or Commies in the 50’s and would have us living under Sharia now.
Thanks but no thanks. I’ve beat my plowshare into a sword.
I did a combat tour in Viet Nam in 1969. All totaled, their death toll came to over three and a half million, without counting wounded messed up lives. I know about “dangerous”. What did you do?
I accurately described your previously stated position as so dangerously naive as to be immoral. Any other questions, or is there some other irrelevant personal info youd like to share? BTW, did you know John Kerry served in Viet Nam?
I believe the philosophy boils down to this: “Love conquers all.” Some folks believe that hatred conquers all, but this is untrue. The love I speak of is “doing what you know is right and liking it” The folly I have spoken of is “doing what you know is wrong and liking it.” One is good and the other is evil. Pretty clear; nothing relative about this. Good begets good just as evil begets more evil. Those who are unafraid to stand for the truth and die have more power than those who choose to live in fear. This has nothing to do with whether you are a comrade in arms, a pacifist, a marine or a Buddhist monk, it has to do with whether you are a master in the Aristotelian sense or a slave. If you are a master you will govern, if you are a slave you will be governed. I would agree that this philosophy is dangerous and immoral to certain people especially those who believe in evolution and Social Darwinism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.