To all you liberal fools - Rendition (2007) Discussion

[–] torii_hunter 15 years ago

Yes, lets stoop to their level. (You do know that torture can cause misinformation...Right) People under stress will admit to anything....;)

reply

[–] sabbatino8 15 years ago

After we captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we used the technique of waterboarding. He broke in a matter of minutes, giving up the names of his top lieutenants and stopping dozens of attacks and saving thousands of innocent lives. Are you seriously saying that you would rather see a dozen more 911's than violate the rights of this sub-human piece of *beep* This is why I consider liberalism a mental disorder.

reply

[–] peachiega3 15 years ago

did you watch the movie until the end? there was a quote in that i think might help you understand. this part of the quote is as clear as day to some people who you say have a mental disorder but seems to allude you. "if you torture one person.." that's the part i think you didn't understand.
there are actual terrorists out there, i think we all can agree, but do you even know what their real reason is? and don't pass it off as 'if they kill an american they will go to heaven because americans are more liberal than they are." that's what they may tell some of their followers.
i think that the real reason behind it all seems to have a lot less to do with that and a lot more to do with the political influence of america in a little place called israel.
but whatever. i don't see how killing people is helping their cause.
by the way i probably won't come back here to check and see what you wrote in response so, hope i helped some. if not, oh well.

reply

[–] wintermonk 15 years ago

" that's the part i think you didn't understand.
there are actual terrorists out there, i think we all can agree, but do you even know what their real reason is? "

Does it matter? If somebody is trying to kill you, do you kill him before he does so, or do you sit around and try to ponder the inner workings of his psyche to see if you might come up with some brilliant insight worthy an article in Psychology Today?

reply

[–] gipper42 15 years ago

Does it matter? If somebody is trying to kill you, do you kill him before he does so, or do you sit around and try to ponder the inner workings of his psyche

except that you think that there should be a war on all Muslims as opposed to the terrorists

Because there is no rational argument for the actions that occur in the film

reply

[–] d_henderson1810 12 years ago

Whether the Americans support Israel or not, or whether the Arabs agree with this or not, there is NO, absolutely NO justification for terrorist attacks, ever!

If we are going to lambast the U.S. for their methods, we should be balanced and criticize the way the Arabs go about getting their point across, too.

You say about the U.S.A. supporting Israel, but don't you think that the Arabs, if they have a legitimate gripe, need to go about getting their point across another way?

They have the right to object and protest, but, as bad as "waterboarding" is (and I don't agree with it), setting off bombs that kill people is worse.

reply

[–] RParmly-3 15 years ago

"In the words of Jack Bauer." Witness if you will the beliefs of a man so deeply encrusted in the "real world" that the best quote he can find to back up his beliefs is from a TV serial.

Denny Crane.

reply

[–] wintermonk 15 years ago

fallacious. Debate the quote, not the source.

reply

[–] lips_are_important 15 years ago

"This movie is just another piece of Hollywood crap for all you liberal morons out there who either don't undersatnd the situation, or are , in the words of Jack Bauer, " Weak, and unwilling and unable to look evil in the eye and deal with it". Coercive interrogations saves lives, innocent lives, thousands of innocent lives. Just ask Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 911, how many more attacks he had planned before he talked. All you liberal fools want to play softball when the bad guys are playing hardball. Thank God we had a strong conservative in office on 911. "

Sabbatino8, I'm all for an honest, open debate on the subject, and I do see valid points on both sides of the argument, but chiding people you have never spoken to for not understanding reality, and then backing up your assertion with a quote from a TV show is counterproductive to your goals at best, and completely misguided at worst.

Also, I would challenge your statement that Bush was, or is a "strong conservative" -- By the end of his second term, most Republicans lamented the fact that Bush had entirely betrayed the fundamentals of real American conservatism by not only abandoning any sense of fiscal responsibility, but presiding over the largest expansion of Government since WWII. Yeah, you got a real "strong conservative" there.

reply

[–] RParmly-3 15 years ago

"Also, I would challenge your statement that Bush was, or is a "strong conservative" -- By the end of his second term, most Republicans lamented the fact that Bush had entirely betrayed the fundamentals of real American conservatism by not only abandoning any sense of fiscal responsibility, but presiding over the largest expansion of Government since WWII. Yeah, you got a real "strong conservative" there."

I'd argue he was very much a Republican politician, in the modern, post-1980 sense of the word - in fact, that he was the Reagan revolution taken to its logical end. Cutting taxes while raising the budget through military spending was a hallmark of Ronald Reagan. Abandoning fiscal responsibility was too (dipping into the social security budget to fund the military). Bush just took it further than had been done before.

In the Gilded Age, the dominant (Republican) consensus was "the free market's harsh, but it's worth it to not have big government interfering." After the Great Depression, the (Democratic) consensus was that big government was necessary to help people, but you needed to accept a somewhat heavier tax burden for it. By contrast the modern, 1980-2008 consensus (GOP again) was essentially "we can have our cake and eat it too" - let's have a big government, cut taxes at the same time, and hope it works. In that sense it seems like Bush was indeed what we call a "conservative" today. The true "small government" people have been getting sidelined for decades, to the point that I'd argue they are no longer the norm.

Denny Crane.

reply

[–] lips_are_important 15 years ago

RParmly-3, I suppose it really depends on your definition of a "strong conservative." I agree that he was very much a Republican politician, and that goes to show just how far from fundamental conservatism the GOP has strayed over the past 8, 12, 20 years. By the traditional definition, Bush was anything but a "conservative." However, under Reagan, spending was controlled, especially when you compare it to the "put it on the card" approach of the Bush adminstration, which, by the way, has worked out wonderfully, if you haven't noticed.

To me, this isn't a liberal or conservative question, it's a question of responsibility and sane leadership, neither of which I ever witnessed Bush 43 display during his two terms.

reply

[–] RParmly-3 15 years ago

"I agree that he was very much a Republican politician, and that goes to show just how far from fundamental conservatism the GOP has strayed over the past 8, 12, 20 years."

Logical. As a 21 year old, I suppose I know little else... must have been nice to have a GOP that was actually fiscally responsible.

"To me, this isn't a liberal or conservative question, it's a question of responsibility and sane leadership, neither of which I ever witnessed Bush 43 display during his two terms."

Again, couldn't agree more. The Bush people have had their shot - now let's see if the Obama administration does better.

Denny Crane.

reply

[–] sabbatino8 15 years ago

When I referred to Bush as a conservative, I meant he was a conservative on matters of National Security and National Defense. I was not talking about fiscal and economic matters.
Getting back on the subject, What do you think Obama would have done with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after his capture. He probably would have set him up in a nice air conditioned room, with a nice comfortable recliner. Bring him some refreshing ice tea if he was thirsty. When he refused to answer any questions about future attacks, he would instruct the interrogators to say "please". If that doesn't work, they would be instructed to say "pretty please,....with sugar on top". But that's a moot point, because if Obama was President at that time, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed probably would not have been captured.

reply

[–] RParmly-3 15 years ago

Ahhhh... what an idiot.

The man announces, less than two months ago, that he's increasing troop presence in Afghanistan (home of the Taliban and, you know, this thing called al-Qaeda) by 17,000, and the tool of an OP thinks it's because he wants to "offer them a nice air conditioned room with a nice comfortable recliner."

What a ****ing idiot.

Denny Crane.

reply

[–] sabbatino8 15 years ago

This first thing our moron president did was issue an executive order that limits what CIA interrogators can do. Basically, These enemy combatants, oh i'm sorry, we can't call them that anymore, I mean these people must be treated like POWS, even though they are not POWS and are not entitled to Geneva convention rights. Parmly, you are as dumb as our president. Let me ask you this. Are you familiar with the ticking bomb scenario.

Let's say we have intelligence that there is a nuke about to go off in midtown manhattan in less than 12 hours. We have a guy in custody that knows the whole plot, Who, When, Where, and How it will happen, but he is not talking. We have CIA interrogators that have techniques that will break him in 3 minutes but obama says we can't use them. What would you do ? Remember, even a small nuke, 10 kilotons, will take out at least 100,000 people. WTF would do.

reply

[–] RParmly-3 15 years ago

Oh my.

Sab, are you familiar with the legal system? The illegality of Gitmo doesn't come from the Geneva Convention. It came from the us. It came from the Supreme Court that ruled in cases like Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that they were entitled to the protection of the GC. It came from Congress back when it voted in 2005 to outlaw "inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment" for these detainees. That was back when both houses were Republican and it was Senator McCain who led the charge. Not some vast, liberal conspiracy of your personal bogeyman, Barack Hussein Obama.

"Ticking bomb scenario"? Hey Sab! Where, outside of Hollywood, has that ever happened? If it ever did, I'm sure the people who tortured for information would be forgiven; the point is, it's an extraordinary situation. Bush wanted to take the measures applied to extraordinary situations and apply them to any and every prisoner we caught. Torture them whether or not you know if they're al-Qaeda, torture them just to find out if they're in al-Qaeda. Remember the three Brits who were released in 2004 without charge and after a good deal of torture? They weren't the only ones either.

Yes, I know, collateral damage. Tell you what; next time, you can get picked up in the wrong place and at the wrong time by a CIA operation, spend a year or two undergoing daily torture, and then get tossed out with nothing but a "sorry, my mistake" and then, let me know if you're still pro-torture. Until then, STFU.

Denny Crane.

reply

[–] sabbatino8 15 years ago

Poor misguided Parmly writes:
"Where, outside of Hollywood, has that ever happened? If it ever did, I'm sure the people who tortured for information would be forgiven; the point is, it's an extraordinary situation."

I guess 911 wasn't "extraordinary" enough for Parmly. Parmly feels torture is OK only in some "extraordinary" situations. But your man obama doesn't think so, or he would put it in writing in an executive order. So, that leaves it up to our intelligence officers to decide if the situation is justified enough to break the law and hope they will be forgiven. Parmly, you sound so naive. I am assuming you are about college age, brainwashed by the far left looney professors. Your man, obama, is doing everything he can to make it as easy as possible for the bad guys to hit us again. Oh, and by the way, I watched the towers fall from my bedroom window, it was pretty "extraordinary".

reply

[–] RParmly-3 15 years ago

Well done, Sab.

Now listen carefully;

1) Did we have a terrorist in our hands at the moment of 9/11 who knew about the attacks?

2) Therefore, would torturing anyone and everyone in our possession have made any difference?

*That's* what the ticking bomb scenario means - first, that there is a real threat, second, *that you have in your hands someone who knows something about it.* In that case, torture your ass off. If you're going to randomly torture anyone and everyone in your custody (again, see the three Brits from 2004 and a number of other people), then count me out.

If you want to know something about al-Qaeda, the surest way remains through penetration of its networks, not information extraction from people we've captured. (For that matter, I doubt if any terrorist group would continue to carry out a plan if someone who knew about it had been captured by the authorities - at the very least they'd change it so that nothing the guy could tell would jeopardize the operation). Something Bush and Obama both understood, despite their various flaws; every intelligence reform I've seen in the last decade from either side of the aisle includes some kind of call for the increase in field human intelligence.

We all have our ways of expressing ourselves. However, try and balance the smugness with a few facts. So you watched the towers get hit? My heart bleeds for you. I did the same for the Pentagon. Some of us saw it and wanted to go after the threat. Others wanted to blindly arrest and detain, then torture and hope it led somewhere. Enjoy your status as one of the latter.

As for my allegedly left-wing leanings, I needed no professors, loony or otherwise, to convince me of them. Eight years of George W. Bush did the trick just fine.

Denny Crane.

reply

[–] sabbatino8 15 years ago

Parmly, I do not advocate randomly arresting, detaining, or torturing anyone. I do believe that coercive interrogations of legitimate bad guys, who have info that could stop an attack, is justified. I think on this point we agree. I also think that you would agree that the coercive interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was justified. We all agree he is a legitimate bad guy. It led to the capture of a dozen top al-Qaeda lieutenants and uncovered numerous plots.
Here is where we disagree. You support a man that would have made the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed illegal. Your man, obama, has no clue how to fight this war on terror. He has no clue how to protect this Nation. He thinks we can win this war fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.
Here is where we also disagree. You seem to have disdain for GWB. I thank the Lord that we had the right man in office at a time when we needed him the most. Could you imagine if obama, or gore, or kerry had been President on 9/11. We surely would have been hit again.
As a debater, you proved yourself a worthy adversary. I will leave you with this final thought:
“If you are under 30, and are not a liberal, you have no heart, if you are over 30 and are still a liberal, you have no brain.”

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BelleCBelle 11 years ago

Wow, what scares me is who determines who the "legitimate bad guys" are? Please let's forget the liberal/conservative labels, and just try to think like human beings. I debate this issue with my boyfriend, who believes the end result does justify the means. I cannot think of such an issue in simplistic terms. Those who can, frighten me.

reply

[–] lips_are_important 15 years ago

Sabbatino8, here's the thing: you may have valid points, and that's all well and good, but no one takes you seriously because you litter your argument with "you're a moron." Discuss things like an adult, and people will treat your opinions as such.

reply

[–] white-hand 15 years ago

"This first thing our moron president did was issue an executive order that limits what CIA interrogators can do."
I don't think you should be referring to your commander-in-chief as "moron" and "dumb", no matter what he does (including Bush).

"I mean these people must be treated like POWS, even though they are not POWS and are not entitled to Geneva convention rights."
Your previous president said that america, and the world, are at war...therefore they are POWS (wether you like it or not). And who exactly are you to say they are waivered of the Geneva convention?

As for your "hollywood" scenario, where's your proof that the CIA interrogators "have their guy". In 3 minutes?....no, in less than that, he can say anything to get them off his back. That is one part of the message the movie tries to deliver. The problem with your CIA tactics during Bush's time, was that everything was done so fast and hasty without confirming what's true or what isn't. Probably due to the fact that the media as well as the public kept implying the "failure" of the NSA, CIA, and FBI.

Check out the people the US captured and kept in Gitmo (which is thankfully over), all captured and tortured, without being charged. After years of torture (some call it "interrogation"), it is finally clear that they are of no harm, and taken back to their countries....just like that. The rest that cannot go back....well....they shall go to the US...how ironic...and good for them.

Stop living in the movies and get back to reality.....

reply

[–] joshfenn 15 years ago

Christ. You are a child. Turn off your TV and read a book.

"Ticking time bomb scenario." Just for *beep*'s sake. You are STUPID.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] terroricon 15 years ago

Haha

reply

[–] bobbo-30 15 years ago

Well,

Speaking strictly as an alcoholic and former user of the fine cocaine, I can't say I'd even NEARLY qualify as the 'Conservative' that you and your greed-head bunch would want to put in the White House...

But then again, I own a few firearms, can clear brush like a mad bastard when it's necessary, have failed in almost every private enterprise I've had a hand (or investment) at, and am from Texas. Should I run, do you think? Would you vote for me, bro?

Okay,
Bobbo

"Only a fool would say that." --STEELY DAN

reply

[–] Caring_is_Creepy 15 years ago

My thing is Sabbatino or whatever your name is. Would you enjoy randomly being taken from the airport with all your friends and family watching. Taken into a government holding facility only to be "Interrogated" however roughly about a terrorist scheme or other such matter. Due to the fact that you like like an American informant working with whatever terrorist faction it happens to be at the time. Only to be let go after several hours and sent on your merry way because they confirmed you weren't the man they were looking for? No the answer is straight up no, there's no leeway allowed in that response you would be pissed off, and scarred for the rest of your life. Your not gonna shrug it off and say it was an honest mistake. God knows what techniques they used to acquire information from you, or what kind of physical and mental abuse they put you through to get answers to there questions. No one would walk away from that without being haunted for the rest of there life. Should the government use excessive force when interrogating terrorist, in some instances yes but only in a matter where they have absolute positive identification on the detainee in question. What your pretty much saying is any tom, dick, and Muhammad the govt has any doubts towards it's ok to use extreme and inhumane methods to extract information from. So unless you've had that happen to you, which I highly doubt how can you put someone else under that kind of duress without 100% certanity that they have information vital to your cause. If you were an American born, and raised Indian, or Muslim and had to endure that kind of racial profiling, I bet you would be singing a much different tune then being an American born White American. What makes you more superior and less likely to be a terrorist than any other person on this planet? Seriously it's that kind of simple mindedness that made us endure The Civil War, and the Holocaust.

reply

[–] Caring_is_Creepy 15 years ago

And that being said, What does the current president in office have to do anything with this movie? It's a movie just that. That's like saying it was ok for Samuel L Jackson to chain up Christina Ricci in Black Snake Moan because she wasn't right in the head yet. It's FICTION. For somebody who probably didn't go to the library much you might not realize that means it's Not Real, could it have happened yes, but it didn't. So using this movie as a platform to base all your opinions, beliefs, and problems with the government just shows a complete lack of patriotism on your part, and not only that but it's just plain stupid. If you don't like what our country is doing then get out. The Majority spoke, and voted a black man into office, not only that but a democratic black man. Since that seems to add insult to injury to you, and since this country has adopted a democratic government it looks like the vast majority of the people weren't to happy with the way ol' GWB was running things, and went for a candidate that they felt had there interest at heart. If for some reason that sickens you so much, and makes you feel that you have to bash any and all things that or government is doing that isn't to your liking on a movie thread no less than I don't see how your any better than, watching someone burn the American flag and say death to America. No one should have there basic human rights taken away unless they've done something so terrible that requires some form of punishment to fit the crime.

reply

[–] sabbatino8 15 years ago

Creepy,

First of all, you are implying that I have a problem with a black person as President. I don't. I would vote for Condolezza Rice in a heartbeat if she ran. I have a major problem with a far left liberal as President.

Secondly, you are implying that I would randonly torture people. Show me where I ever said that. I believe that coercive interrogation should only be used if there an imminent threat, and that there is 100 % certainty that we have the right person. In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, post 9/11, it fits both criteria.

All I am saying is this movie is a piece of lefty, liberal, Hollywood crap. It's whole message is intended to brainwash the public into thinking that the U.S governmant is the bad guys, because of the Bush policies. Remember, The Bush anti-terror policies kept your dumb ass safe for 7 years following 9/11.

Our current president is doing everything he can to make it as easy as possible for the real bad guys to hit us again.

reply

[–] nigelgtx 15 years ago

The torture is a waste of time and money, and so is GITMO.
Shoot the bastards where you find them in the desert. That's a quick and easy solution, and the whinning liberals will never know the difference.

reply

[–] joshfenn 15 years ago

If Bush gets credit for the 7.5 years after 9/11 then he also gets the blame for 9/11. It goes both ways.

George W. Bush was President when 9/11 happened. By your logic, it was his fault.

reply

[–] d_henderson1810 12 years ago

Don't forget, America also voted for GWB, and before you say about the disputed results and the recount, he also won a second term in office, so a lot of people must have thought he was doing something right.

Bush was never voted out of office. He served his eight years, and like any President, he couldn't serve any more than that. Whether he would have anyway, or lost to Obama, we will never know. Maybe he would've (such was the feeling for Obama at the time). However, the facts are, that the American people voted for both GWB and Obama.

One thing the OP seems to forget is that it was under Obama's watch that Osama Bin Laden was killed. I wouldn't say that is going soft on terrorists.

reply

[–] ichbinsisyphos 15 years ago

Go *beep* yourself. The question is not whether torture is an acceptable means for getting information out of terrorists, there is something much worse on the table.

People, normal civilians have been kidnapped by *beep* intelligence services or delivered to them by bounty hunters for a cash reward. Nobody knew them, nobody bothered to determine their legal status.
Then they spent 6 or more years imprisoned, tortured, they didn't even know where they were.

That's why the whole world demands fair trials for those people. So that the innocent can be freed and lead a normal life again.

I can't believe that you argue in favor of those atrocities. Imagine you are one of them. Would you consider it a necessary sacrifice for you to be tortured, although you haven't done anything wrong in your whole life?

reply

[–] solomonmethod 15 years ago

Al Queda and all the fundamentalist muslims between Isreal and Iraq were happy as they could possibly be while GWB was in office. As long as GWB was in power he squandered money frivolously on the "war on terrorism". They were in such high hopes that John MacCain would be elected. This would mean that the military would continue to be funded to the detriment of the American economy.

From what I heard on the radio, these fundamentalists were upset when Obama was elected. I'm pretty sure that all of their attacks so far on America have been efforts to cripple the American economy. If it were a war of casualties, they'd be losing right now. But it's a war based on emotion, and like any fight that's based on emotion, it will never end until somebody decides to stand up and show some sort of responsibility.

There are many ways to view what actions would be in the best interest of America and the rest of the world. Discipline? Education and Counselling? Prevention? Protection? Political Preservation? Economic Tie-Ins? Human Rights? Borders? Power?

One thing is for sure, There will never be any progress made unless each and every person lays down their own selfish ways and starts to see their neighbours (enemies or not) as an equally deserving human being. Unfortunately there are ones out there who spread their misery and selfishness and as a result we sometimes have to stand up for ourselves. What I have learned in life though, is that this can be done in a non-violent way (and I don't necessarily mean passive-resistance, because that doesn't always work either). It is possible to act and make a statement without hurting other people. Trust that the each and every person in the world has the potential to learn and better themselves. To think in any other way is to succumb to and perpetuate the greed and hatred that has brought us to where we are now.

reply

[–] nigelgtx 15 years ago

I said TORTURE IS A WASTE OF TIME. It goes nowhere. People will say literally anything while being tortured.
There is no reasoning with these muslims extremists. Stay out of their countries, and don't let them into ours. If we capture them, shoot them. Quick and cheap.

reply

[–] d_henderson1810 12 years ago

I don't agree with that, but I don't even agree with all the stuff you now have to go through to even get into America.

At the airport, you are put through the ringer. Now, I could be offended, by saying that they suspect me to be a terrorist threat. But I accept that, because the U.S. want to be extra careful about their security now.

Now, innocent people shouldn't be tortured. But to test no-one, to avoid making a mistake, is not the option either.

Some things you have to put up with today in post-9/11 America.

reply

[–] KayossZero 15 years ago

Note for the OP, when you're going to bash the side that is right try to use quotes from a show that doesn't suck. 24 is Startrek on land and isn't plausible in the least, P.S you're an idiot.

reply

[–] beyalora 15 years ago

Violence of the oppressor is wrong.Violence of the oppressed is necessary.

If one can justify going to war against a nation thats not harming you physically, then that same person should BE prepared to see every single 9/11 happen regularly. IT'S A WAR.And people, let's just call a spade, a spade. We all know why these so called "wars on terror" started, not because of 9/11; they were being planned way before that unfortunate incident. If world domination of resources through free market policies, tactical assassinations and coercive military action is a country's goal, then please don't bitch about getting your ass kicked.

reply

[–] williams-59 15 years ago

Watch "Syriana". The CIA takes out a Middle Eastern prince whose reforms, if he can get them through, would greatly restrict the United States' access to the oilfields in his country.

reply

[–] VulcanLogic 15 years ago

If you'd rather see innocent people abducted and tortured to death just to "feel" safer, that makes you a coward. Most of us are willing to die to protect the Constitution, due process, and the rule of law. You truly have the courage of a three year old girl.

Those who would promote the torture for their own sense of security are cowards.

reply

[–] sabbatino8 15 years ago

VulcanLogic, LOL, What a misnomer. If you want to die at the hands of radical fanatics, be my guest. I would rather fight back, not only to protect my self, but my friends and family and every other innocent American. And, if you read my posts, you would know that I do not support the torturing of any innocent people. I said I support the coercive interrogation of legitimate bad guys who have information about an impending attack.
Il logic, you are the coward, the sissy liberal, the naive little girl who does not have balls to do what it takes to defend a Nation. If you were in charge in 1940's, you probaly would not have ordered the invasion of Normandy, or the attack on Hiroshima.
Let me explain to you how the world really is. There are evil people in this world that would love to come to great power, in Countries like North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, Venezeula etc. There is only one thing stopping this from happening, The military might of The United States of America. If we get hit again, possilly with a WMD, the United States might not be able to recover.
Without the U.S., evil would rule this planet, killing, torturing and oppressing billions. There would be no Constition to protect. So, if you think it is logical to protect the rights of a human dirtbag like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and risk another 9/11 or worse, you sir are not only a coward but also a fool.

reply

[–] VulcanLogic 15 years ago

You're not only a coward, you aren't very bright. You said you support the coercive interrogation of legitimate bad guys who have information about an impending attack. This isn't what has been happening. This in fact, has never happened in the history of the program. KSM may be a douchebag, but almost none of the dozens and dozens of people were proven to be planning any attack before they were tortured; there was never any 12 hour ticking time bomb like you see on 24. They were just assumed to be terrorists and tortured, with no due process. And, the vast majority of them were completely innocent, including several dozen that were tortured to death by the United States. Your Jack Bauer scenario only happens on television, not the real world.

Just because you don't torture doesn't mean you don't fight. That statement is just idiotic. It's not about not fighting, it's about fighting most effectively and within the rule of law. Israel deals with more terrorism than we ever will, AND THEY DO NOT TORTURE. They used to, but figured out that it doesn't work. Every second spent following false information coerced by torture is a second wasted fighting actual terrorism. The Israelis prefer a more competent approach, using effective interrogation, not one that is not only ineffective, but provides a huge recruiting boost to our enemies and the scorn of the world. I'd rather fight their way, the right way, than the stupid and cowardly way.

The fact that you are so concerned with your own safety that you would see people tortured makes you a coward.

Those who would promote the torture for their own sense of security are cowards.

reply

[–] sabbatino8 15 years ago

Nologic,
What Far left liberal news source do you get your info from, CNN or the New York Times? It's beyond belief that someone can be so misinformed, so naive and so foolish. You really believe that The United States Government went around and abducted and tortured dozens and dozens of innocent people. You have been so brainwashed by the liberal media, you are beyond help. Watch Fox News sometime if you want to know what is really going on. If you had been watching real news, you would know that the information we got through coercive interrogation of KSM, and his two top lieutenants, stopped another 9/11 type attack on the west coast and another plot to blow up bridges and tunnels in New York. These FACTS are in documents that Obama did not make public for political reasons. You sir have all the markings of a far left loon; misinformed, naive, weak and foolish. The bad guys are playing hardball, and wimpy liberals like yourself want to play softball. You need to wise up and grow up and grow a pair of balls and then maybe you could look evil in the eye and deal with it. For now, go stick your head in the sand and pretend the threat doesn't exist.

reply

[–] VulcanLogic 15 years ago

I read the Bush administration's own report that they foiled the KSM west coast plot in 2002. KSM was not apprehended until 2003. The Bush administration lied, that's a fact, and you are the fool. And a coward. The people who know terror (Israel) don't torture.

Those who would promote the torture for their own sense of security are cowards.

reply

[–] gipper42 15 years ago

To all you liberal fools

Wow, what a convincing opening statement for a cogent argument! Clearly, you are an intelligent, educated man as opposed to a useless troll!

reply

[–] sabbatino8 15 years ago

Hey Gip, The opening statement got your attention. I bet, if you were walking down the street, and someone yelled out, *beep* you turn around.

reply

[–] gipper42 15 years ago

Actually, I think most people would. Nevertheless, I think you've shown off the full extent of your vocabulary.

reply

[–] joshfenn 15 years ago

Yeah --- that "strong conservative" who was in office on 9/11 ... it was on his watch. It was Bush that ignored the evidence of a possible attack inside the United States using planes.

Right now Cheney is going around talking about how there could be another terrorist attack - like he's waiting to blame it on Obama if it happens. If he wants to blame such a possible attack on Obama, shouldn't he and Bush take the blame for 9/11?

reply

[–] sabbatino8 15 years ago

Josh, you poor misguided fool. The planning and training for 9/11 started during the Clinton administration. If Clinton had responded to all the other previous attacks that took place while he was President, like the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, and the first World Trade Center attack, maybe 911 would never had happened. But, of course he was too busy with Monica to concentrate on National Security. The bad guys big mistake was they didn't understand the difference between a strong conservative and a weak wimpy liberal. They thought there would be no response to 911 just like all the other previous attacks under Clinton. They were wrong. GWB went into Afghanistan and caught or killed three quarters of Al Qaeda's top leadership, including the #3 guy, KSM, and his two replacements. Now, this moron, obama, and his moronic liberal base, are saying that the CIA and the military, the very people that protected your dumb ass, are the bad guys, and the people that murdered three thousand Americans are the poor tortured victims. The anti-terror policies of GWB kept us safe for seven years. If we get hit again, obama must accept responsability.

reply

[–] gipper42 15 years ago

The planning and training for 9/11 started during the Clinton administration.

Yes, because some nutjobs planned an attack on America during Clinton's terms in office, Clinton is responsible. Never mind that two well-known Republicans (including Ronald Reagan's head of counterterrorism operations for the State Department) said that Clinton "was the best counterterrorism President of the 20th century" and even criticized Clinton for having an "obsession with Osama." Clinton, in your poor deluded mind, is responsible.

Instead of calling other people who disagree with your warped view of reality "fools," you should get a life or educate yourself further.

reply

[–] sabbatino8 15 years ago

Gip, you are so confused and misinformed.

Three times, in 1996, 1998, and 2000, the Sudanese government offered to arrest and extradite Bin Laden. Clinton rejected each offer even though he knew of bin Laden's involvement in bombings on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Four times during Clintons two administrations, we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, yet there was never any serious military response.

According to CIA official Mansoor Ijaz, "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history."

You sir, are the one who is in desperate need of an education.

reply

[–] RParmly-3 15 years ago

Haven't been on here for a while.

Sab; I don't knee-jerk disbelieve you on Clinton (the U.S. government has made criminally stupid decisions before, and he was no exception), but I'd need a little more evidence than you provide.

The reason I doubt you is first because of the following excerpt from the 9/11 commission report;

"In late 1995, when Bin Laden was still in Sudan, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi government the possibility of expelling Bin Laden. US Ambassador Timothy Carney encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course. The Saudis, however, did not want Bin Laden, giving as their reason their revocation of his citizenship. Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Laden over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Laden. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding".

The commission report was released at a time when executive and legislative power were both in the hands of Republicans who, as a rule, have absolutely no love for Bill Clinton, so I have no reason to disbelieve this. If it had been a Democratic Congress or President that released it, maybe you could claim they were covering for Bill, but Republicans? Not very plausible.

That's for your first date, 1996. You further claim that in 1998 and 2000 the Sudanese government offered to extradite Bin Laden. That would be impossible because Osama Bin Laden left Sudan in 1996 and would have been in *Afghanistan* at that point, with nothing more to do with Sudan. If I recall correctly, Clinton did try to have him extradited there - in fact, the UN sanctions on Afghanistan were put up in 1999 in an effort to coerce them into doing that. But they didn't cooperate.

Sorry, but nothing I've seen has persuaded me that either Bill Clinton or George Bush could be blamed for 9/11 (as you've seen, I'm not a fan of the latter, but this was not one of his faults).

Denny Crane.

reply

[–] sabbatino8 15 years ago

To be honest, I havn't read the 911 commission report and I am sure there are very few people who really know where Bin Laden was at any given time period. I am sure much of that is highly classified info. And, nobody could be sure if taking Bin Laden would have stopped any attacks anyway.
The main reason I put partial blame for 911 on Clinton is that there should have been some military response on Al-quada during his administration. He treated the first attack on the World Trade Center as a "crime" instead of an "act of war", which it was.
Bush understood we were at war and went into Afghanistan and killed or captured most of the top bad guys.

reply

[–] tourangh 15 years ago

The OP watches way too much 24. I'm sure that 24 has influenced you to believe in impossible situations that happen on a daily basis and the only way to stop them is through torture.
This movie does the exact opposite.

I'm not taking sides but I am just saying that you are basically a hypocrite and you have only one real life example to back up your claims. The rest of them seem to be based on an episode of 24. Also I love how he says "top bad guys" and then resorts to calling others college child's.

reply

[–] centen 15 years ago

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed only confessed to attacks that had already been foiled or past attacks. He told the Red Cross he had given plenty of false information to get the torture to stop. CIA has admitted this also. Besides a violation of all the human rights charters which the USA has signed torture simply doesn't work. The "top bad guys" will always be replaced quickly. Bush's war was a failure; Obama will fail too. They simply don't know what they are doing.

reply

[–] gipper42 15 years ago

To be honest, I havn't read the 911 commission report

Then you probably have no idea what you're talking about, which is really no surprise here

reply

[–] gipper42 15 years ago

Three times, in 1996, 1998, and 2000, the Sudanese government offered to arrest and extradite Bin Laden. Clinton rejected each offer even though he knew of bin Laden's involvement in bombings on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

So what other things can you pull out of your ass?

Four times during Clintons two administrations, we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, yet there was never any serious military response.

That's why Clinton was praised by Republicans and Democrats alike while he was in office for his counterterrorism efforts. Of course, you ignore the obvious: that Bush has opened up America to even more attacks in Iraq thanks to his moronic policies.

You sir, are the one who is in desperate need of an education.

An education in stupidity, perhaps. I'm sure you have much to teach on that....

reply

[–] d_henderson1810 12 years ago

Would you blame a Democrat if 9/11 happened on their watch?

Would you blame Obama, or even Clinton, if 9/11 happened when they were in?

I know what Clinton would have been doing during the 9/11 attacks, if still in office. He would be doing some intern.

reply