Pat Buchanan: We Hold Obama Accountable If We Don't Use Waterboarding And...

[Stars&Stripes]

...bad things happen because we could have used waterboarding to stop terrorist attacks.

BTW, A Gallup Poll shows that 55% of Americans favor using interrogation methods like waterboarding, while 36% say no to interrogation methods like waterboarding.

I saw this poll on Morning Joe (Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC) this morning... in fact just a few minuted ago.

Pat Buchanan was on there, and he said that if Obama wants to use long-term interrogation methods to extract information from terrorists, and forgoes interrogation methods like waterboarding and planes fly into buildings because Obama goes with the long term methods instead of ones that can extract information real fast, or faster, then Obama should be held accountable if this happens (planes fly into buildings). Pretty much what Pat Buchanan said.

Amen, Pat.

Amen indeed!

[Stars&Stripes]

Bump.

[Cletus Wilbury]

So, according to Pat logic, we can blame the Phil Gramm for 9-11.

I mean, after all he, as the Chairman of the Senate banking Committee, personally resisted for several the law that would require off shore banks to cooperate with U.S. investigators, a law that was passed as an important part of the Patriot Act.

It might have spotted terrorist funding for that operation.

Possible Increased US Effort
to Track Offshore Assets as a Result of Terrorism (http://www.escapeartist.com/efam30/NYT.html) - this source could certainly be questioned, old 1999-2001 news hard to find, but the old hands know what I'm talking about.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

...bad things happen because we could have used waterboarding to stop terrorist attacks.

BTW, A Gallup Poll shows that 55% of Americans favor using interrogation methods like waterboarding, while 36% say no to interrogation methods like waterboarding.

I saw this poll on Morning Joe (Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC) this morning... in fact just a few minuted ago.

Pat Buchanan was on there, and he said that if Obama wants to use long-term interrogation methods to extract information from terrorists, and forgoes interrogation methods like waterboarding and planes fly into buildings because Obama goes with the long term methods instead of ones that can extract information real fast, or faster, then Obama should be held accountable if this happens (planes fly into buildings). Pretty much what Pat Buchanan said.

Amen, Pat.

Amen indeed!


What I think is interesting is that one of our most visible commentators that promotes religion in politics is calling for water-boarding.

That and the fact that you ended your OP with an "Amen" to water-boarding.

Makes you wonder how Bin-Laden ends his speeches.

[Late2TheParty]

...bad things happen because we could have used waterboarding to stop terrorist attacks.

I think we should start waterboarding planes! Imagine if we waterboarded the 767s involved in 9/11! The whole thing could have been prevented:mad:

[SFC(R)L]

God help us.

[Stars&Stripes]

So, according to Pat logic, we can blame the Phil Gramm for 9-11.

I mean, after all he, as the Chairman of the Senate banking Committee, personally resisted for several the law that would require off shore banks to cooperate with U.S. investigators, a law that was passed as an important part of the Patriot Act.

It might have spotted terrorist funding for that operation.

Possible Increased US Effort
to Track Offshore Assets as a Result of Terrorism (http://www.escapeartist.com/efam30/NYT.html) - this source could certainly be questioned, old 1999-2001 news hard to find, but the old hands know what I'm talking about.

Waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed DID IN FACT stop terrorist attacks, as that waterboarding of him provided valuable info that saved lives.

Despite that, Obama says no to waterboarding terrorists to extract info from terrorists. He won't even give the okay to use it even in rare situations, and not SOP.

IF AND WHEN info comes out that what Phill Gramm supposedly did allowed terrorists to successfully attack the US, then you have an argument for not doing this in the future.

OTOH, waterboarding WAS THEN used successfuly, yet Obama still says no to it NOW.

Thus, the difference.

[Stars&Stripes]

What I think is interesting is that one of our most visible commentators that promotes religion in politics is calling for water-boarding.

Anti-religion, anti-Christian liberals use similar arguments like this, and then later tear into Christianity. They use what they think helps them, and then dump Christianity when it suits them. Hypocrites.

That and the fact that you ended your OP with an "Amen" to water-boarding.

Makes you wonder how Bin-Laden ends his speeches.

Saint Augustine gave rock-solid arguments for "just war." Using interrogation methods like waterboarding to save lives fits under the umbrella of just war.

What he spoke on is available for perusal. You need to read it and learn something.

What Bin-Laden does and supports does not fall under the umbrella off Just War. He is aa terrorist who wants to ensalve people. America, though, liberates people. Do not even think of comparing the US to Bin laden, either.

Thanks for playing. Please try again later... :D

You apparently just want Obama to rip Americas defenses apart and get away with it if we are attacked and waterboarding could have stopped it Looks like it, IMHO. Tell me if I am wrong.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Anti-religion, anti-Christian liberals use similar arguments like this, and then later tear into Christianity. They use what they think helps them, and then dump Christianity when it suits them. Hypocrites.



Saint Augustine gave rosk-solid arguments for "just war."

What he spoke on is available for perusal. You need to read it and learn something.

What Bin-Laden does and supports does not fall under the umbrella off Just War. He is aa terrorist who wants to ensalve people. America, though, liberates people. Do not even think of comparing the US to Bin laden, either.

Thanks for playing. Please try again later... :D

As a 47 year old lifelong Methodist, I guess your first comment doesn't apply to me.

I know one thing, if Bin-Laden's goal was to turn us into a more violent people or start a holy war, there are signs he's slowly reaching his goal.

[ModerateVoice]

O'Reilly had a similar poll that he released the results of last night - 98% favored "tough interrogation techniques."

[Mojotiger]

That and the fact that you ended your OP with an "Amen" to water-boarding.

Makes you wonder how Bin-Laden ends his speeches.

Did you just compare the OP to Bin Laden?

[Stars&Stripes]

That and the fact that you ended your OP with an "Amen" to water-boarding.

Makes you wonder how Bin-Laden ends his speeches.

BTW, makes you wonder if Bin Laden also doesn't want us to waterboard Al Qaeda terrorists.

[Stars&Stripes]

O'Reilly had a similar poll that he released the results of last night - 98% favored "tough interrogation techniques."

Did you know that its about 33% each for Repubs, Ind's and Dems that watch his show?

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Did you just compare the OP to Bin Laden?

Not at all. I'm comparing people who say do something bad in the name of their religion with people who say do something bad in the name of their religion. That's how I think Bin-Laden has changed us. Our most religious people are giving in to the promoting violent acts. I, personally, don't want to be like them.

[Stars&Stripes]

Did you just compare the OP to Bin Laden?

Do you think that Bin Laden likes Obama's policy on not waterboarding Al Qaeda or other Islamic terrorists to extract information?

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

BTW, makes you wonder if Bin Laden also doesn't want us to waterboard Al Qaeda terrorists.

Well, I think there are two schools of thought. First, he doesn't want his troops tortured. Second, if they are tortured, he can use that political capital with his "army" for motivation/pay back.

Pretty much exactly how I feel when they torture one of ours. I'd be ****ed to see it. But use it to motivate us to go kick their ass.

[Stars&Stripes]

I think we can see here on this thread that libs don't want another liberal (Obama) to be held accountable for his decisions.

Libs aren't into the "no consequences" thing, are they?

[Sneaky SF Dude]

O'Reilly had a similar poll that he released the results of last night - 98% favored "tough interrogation techniques."

LOL. Most of the gen pop doesn't even know what that means. They liked the word "tough".

[SFC(R)L]

Real Americans support and defend the Constitution.

Please direct my attention to the portion of the founding documents that prescribes the use of these tactics.

[SFC(R)L]

Real Americans support and defend the Constitution.

Please direct my attention to the portion of the founding documents that prescribes the use of these tactics.

Anyone?

Bueller?

[Cletus Wilbury]

Real Americans support and defend the Constitution.

Please direct my attention to the portion of the founding documents that prescribes the use of these tactics.

Perhaps of interest.
One thing I found in Bybee Aug 1, 2002 (page 12) was this:


The third predicate act listed in Section 2340(2) is threatning a prioner with "imminent death" 18 U.S.C. - 2340(2)(C). The plain text makes clear that a threat of death alone is insufficient; the threat must indicate that death is "imminent."
The "threat of imminent death" is found in the common law as an element of the defense of duress. See Bailey, 444 U.S. at 409


This is regarding the definition of torture. Then I ask "How is suffocation not a threat of imminent death ?

I can't think of a greater one, physiologically anyway.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed DID IN FACT stop terrorist attacks....

I know that, but that's not what Buchannan is saying. He's gonna assume that any attack could have been stopped by something that never occured. Thus my comparison with Gramm still holds.

[SFC(R)L]

Art. 75. Fundamental guarantees

1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.

2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular: (i) murder; (ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental; (iii) corporal punishment; and (iv) mutilation;

(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form or indecent assault; (c) the taking of hostages; (d) collective punishments; and (e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

3. Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such persons shall be released with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to exist.

[SFC(R)L]

looking for the precedent to waterboard in here.

Having trouble finding it.

[SFC(R)L]

cricket noises