Two important updates to our Iraq hostage watch. First, several people made me aware some time ago that hostage William Bradley's body was discovered earlier in the year. Boston.com:

The body of a civilian truck driver missing since April in Iraq has been found near the place where his convoy was ambushed nine months ago.

William Bradley, 50, lived in Chesterfield before going to Iraq nearly a year ago to drive trucks for Texas-based Halliburton Co., which on Thursday announced the discovery of his remains.

The former Marine was in a fuel truck convoy that was ambushed near Baghdad on April 9.

Second, a little noticed blurb from Douglas Wood. It seems that Mr. Wood barely escaped death but that two other hostages being held in the same room were not so lucky. The Sunday Mail:

DOUGLAS Wood has revealed he feared he was next to die after two fellow hostages were executed by his kidnappers in Iraq.

From what I have been able to deduce from published reports, the two hostages would have been murdered sometime between May 6th and May 9th. Yet no hostage murder videos or statements appeared during this time frame.

If any one has information on who the two victims were, please e-mail me.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:44 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Call former hostage Douglas Wood the 'anti-Sgrena'. Unlike that Communist serial liar and terror supporter who decided on her own it would be a good idea to shoot a video and beg the Italian people to pressure the Berlusconi government to withdraw troops from Iraq, Douglas Wood only made similar pleas because an AK-47 was pointed at his head.

Yesterday, in a brief interview with the press, Wood apologized to President Bush, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Prime Minister Howard. He also reiterated his support for the no negotiations with terrorists policy of the Allied governments. Melbourne Herald Sun:

"Frankly I'd like to apologize to both President (George W.) Bush and Prime Minister (John) Howard for the things I said under duress," said Mr Wood "I actually believe that I am proof positive that the current policy of training the Iraqi army ... works because it was Iraqis that got me out," he added.

In the original hostage video, which I transcribed here, Wood can be heard saying:

President Bush, Prime Minister Howard, Governor Schwarzenegger, family, friends, please help take the American troops, the Australian troops, the British troops out of here and let Iraq look out for itself.

"I didn't know whether it was al-Qaida or who it was," he said. "My head is intact, so it wasn't al-Qaida."

Posted by: Rusty at 09:25 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

By Demosophist

I'm slowly becoming enraged as I watch Stephen Spielberg's latest epic Into the West, which purports to recount the history of a family in Virginia as they migrate westward and merge with the native Americans they encounter. It's hard for me to put my finger on what it is that bothers me about Spielberg's tale, but the essence of the problem is that it's inauthentic. And it's not one single thing that gives me that impression, but more like the fact that I grew up in a family in which the pioneering generation was only once removed from my own. Therefore, the stories really weren't that old when I heard them recounted by people who actually knew the principals. I actually knew my great grandmother, who had become the matriarch of the family by the time I was old enough to toddle around. I actually touched the bridge to that past so inauthentically recounted by Spielberg. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:03 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1084 words, total size 6 kb.

By Demosophist

Honestly, I'm so naive. I figured the story about the Downing Street Memos that fueled the make-believe Conyers hearings was just another in the long list of controversies over interpretation that plague the ideological divide, like the fracas over "imminent threat." It never entered my head that the memos are actually no more real than the Rathergate fakes. What's a creative new word for "surprised," now that Sullivan has violated the term "gobsmacked?" Yeah I'm that, and then some.

Update: more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 10:17 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

Man I'm nervous as a girl with a bad reputation on Easter Sunday. Here are a couple links to GWT stories this Sunday. I doubt that anyone will have to suffer through more of my opinions until next week.

Happy Fathers day all.

Car bomb exploded in resturant

Douglass Wood returns home

And for perspective on what we could be dealing with.

YBP you have got to see the image in the story.

Posted by: Howie at 06:53 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

I spent some time watching the interview of Senator John McCain’s on “NBC NEW’S MEET THE PRESS”. I had few thoughts afterward. About party, the war, and politics in general.

link to MTP transcript

If you are a Republican trying to “Casey Jones” the Democrats and change the rules of the Senate so that the President can get every judge he wants. If you take advantage of our majority and use it to pay back every contributor and push everything past the minority. You put yourselves before our party and before our country.

If a Democrat, filibustering every judge that comes across your desk. Spouting terms like Nazi and Gulag to try and make your point on GITMO. Playing politics with the war and failing to support the President. If you think this war is that trivial. You are putting your party before your nation.

If you are right or left wing and you bite on all the wedge issues like abortion and stem cell research or other moral distractions that never die and then vote for President based on these alone. You are putting your ideals before your duty.

If you are a moderate of either party, or an independent, or just a citizen, and you failed to vote for whom you thought might be a good candidate in a primary or general election because of party or laziness. Well just shut up about George Bush and get behind him. For if you had voted John McCain may have been President right now. The far right and left all vote, blame you.

Also for those who bother to read the transcript and I know itÂ’s hard. Just read some. The next President of the U.S.A., uh I mean Senator McCain gives a great example of the manner in which these issues should be dealt with. Some things are just above politics and I think he knows what those things are. LetÂ’s not start playing politics and forgetting there is a war on. That is exactly what the enemy is counting on. ItÂ’s not fair to the people of this country, itÂ’s not fair to the men and women serving and dying, and itÂ’s most unfair to the people of Iraq who are depending on us to stick with them.

I like quotes, so hereÂ’s what I feel is his best one of the interview.

“But you know what I've found out? That every time I've done something for what may have been influenced by political reasons, I've regretted it. Every time that I've done something that I think is right, it's turned out OK in the end. I've got to do what I think is right. And if it offends a certain political constituency, I regret it, but there's really nothing I can do about it.”

Sen. John McCain R, AZ from
“NBC NEW’S MEET THE PRESS” aired 06/19/05.

Another link to the transcript

IÂ’m so jealous of Arizona.

Posted by: Howie at 06:34 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 498 words, total size 3 kb.

Well Rusty has allowed me to post a few things when I can find them. So IÂ’ll try and add a few relevant links during the week. I also may express an opinion or two. But IÂ’ll try to save making an ass out of myself for the comment sections. Rusty and I have the same problem we have real jobs too. So there will be no way I could possibly answer a whole lot of email should that happen. But IÂ’ll try and skim it for links and stuff to post up. Maybe some of you regulars here can help with that. Please send links to either Rusty or myself but not both so we can avoid duplicate posts. Rusty allows links in the comment sections as well. The object from my perspective is to give Rusty more time to do whatever he does like write meaty opinions. Possibly I might learn a bit from the process. I have no idea what heÂ’s thinking, he tells me nothing. Please post responses and argue as always as I think we all get a lot out of that. And nowÂ….

ISSUE ONE, PATRIOT ACT.

See this Yahoo story

Text of patriot act here.

The House last week passed an extension of the “Patriot Act” which makes searches of library records and such more difficult. The President has vowed to veto it. Some civil liberties groups have hailed this as a major improvement. Also the new bill would make the law Permanent and would require further action by Congress to repeal.

QUESTION?

What are the pros and cons of the new Patriot Act and should it be passed? What changes, etc, etc? And should anyone think that this “concession” is better than a simple extension with an expiration date?

I ask you, my fellow civil libertarian and recently reformed, Greg?

Eleanor? Uh I mean Filthy?

Sorry, I know I shouldnÂ’t have. But I always wanted to do that.

Posted by: Howie at 06:19 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

1 What you'll find Howie is that 99% of critics of the PATRIOT Act do not know what its provisions actually are, and exactly how it changed existing law. Instead, they repeat false claims and exaggerations.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at June 19, 2005 07:24 PM (xauGB)

2 Robin speaks the truth. I know of no one outside of KOS-land who makes any claim that their life has been negatively impacted by the Patriot Act (or impacted in any way for that mattter).

Posted by: EvilMe at June 19, 2005 09:25 PM (hi8LV)

3 What I want to know is why it's easier to slip under the radar getting a gun than it is to do some reading of "questionable material"... I'm not anti-gun, but damn if it ain't easy for nutjobs to get one. I love how Bush, inc. gives the opposite names to things it's trying to pass to trick those who are asleep in our government into going, "Huh? Where do I sign? When's lunch?". Anyway, as you know I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act, since I think it's eroding our hard won American freedoms and rights. What does everyone else think? (besides "fuck you osamabinbitchin' lib bastard")

Posted by: osamabeensellin'tinfoil at June 19, 2005 11:40 PM (buka0)

4 Yes Sahib, you have question for the Filthy one?

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 20, 2005 07:46 AM (yBHNA)

5 Be specific osama. In what ways specifically has the patriot act 'eroded our freedoms and rights'? Until you can answer that question, you just come accross as hysterical and uninformed. Oh yeah, fuck you osamabinbitchin' you lib bastard.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 20, 2005 08:37 AM (jPCiN)

6 Well, I guess 40 Republicans, some known as staunch conservatives, voted for the amendment to be amended anyway...(238 to 187). So that's quite a majority. To be specific, I don't want people monitoring what I read. How is that for a start?

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 20, 2005 10:19 AM (buka0)

7 Fair enough osama, I wouldn't much want that either. However, is that what's happening? Is it ok for the FBI to moniter a persons reading if they are already a suspect, or should that be out as well?

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 20, 2005 10:40 AM (jPCiN)

8 As Robin suggests, few people have read the Patriot Act, including the congress critters who voted for it. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote — at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." –Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). The bill was rammed through congress a few weeks after 9-11 and during the Anthrax scare. In this atmosphere of hysteria, congress critters were given a couple of days to act on it. It was overwhelmingly passed. What is so bad about the new law? "Generally," says Rep. Ron Paul, "the worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peek" provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose property was to be searched. With one vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated. Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence. According to Rep. Ron Paul, “Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." According to this definition, any act of civil disobedience now falls under the umbrella of terrorism. The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your Internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and Internet communications. The Act also allows the government to order librarians and bookstores owners to report the ‘literary consumptive’ practices of individuals. Librarians around the country have led the charge against this provision in the Patriot Act, arguing that Americans have always been free to read whatever they choose without being monitored by government. The Act also gives the government the power to access your medical and tax records. Some of these ‘flawed’ provisions are set to expire at the end of the year. But President Bush wants to make them permanent and even strengthen the Act, and the House and Senate have been holding hearings in preparation for votes. These are just a tiny fraction of the numerous provisions that conflict with the Constitution. The Act, rather than focusing on ‘terrorists’, as you and I would define them, focuses on American citizens. Companions to the Act contain ‘lone wolf’ provisions and FBI pamphlets have been produced and distributed that warn people to be on the look out for people who call themselves Constitutionalists, and to turn them in. Clearly this act further subordinates American citizens to the whims of government. It brings us one step closer to Martial Law. There are over 600 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States. It is apparent that the government is prepared to round up dissidents should the voice of dissent reach a critical mass. This is no longer a country governed by the people for the people. The people are now viewed as an impediment to the consolidation of power currently being undertaken by the government. The future is coming into focus. I see tanks in the streets. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, -- The Declaration of Independence

Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 11:11 AM (/+dAV)

9 DG...I think snooping library records is crap. Think of how easy it is to get into this country, fake ID's, absurd airport security, weak or nonexistent security involving major water supplies, buildings, bridges, etc. Need a gun? Easier than opening a bank account. Those things worry me more than someone's reading habits. I want results and confidence, not big brother.

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 20, 2005 11:19 AM (p0lNZ)

10 Greg: I thought you would like that subject.

Posted by: Howie at June 20, 2005 11:43 AM (D3+20)

11 He whose name I shall not repeat said: "Anyway, as you know I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act, since I think it's eroding our hard won American freedoms and rights. What does everyone else think?" I think that the Patriot Act is a necessary evil, but should definitely have a periodic renewal requirement and should never, EVER, become permanent law. Such laws have a way of far outlasting their time, and becoming tools for oppression after their original purpose has expired. I oppose its permenence for the same reason as many others; it can be used by corrupt politicians to attack political opponents, i.e., Hillary "filegate" Clinton. The Patriot Act itself doesn't bother me an infinitessimal fraction as much4 as a judiciary that is completely out of touch with the Constitution and beyond control of the President, Congress, and the People. When the judiciary exceeds its legal bounds and begins to actively legislate from the bench with little or no regard for the Constitution or American legal and social tradition, then I think it doesn't matter what legislation Congress passes, we're screwed. Congress is like a carnival sideshow with misbehaving monkeys, but the Courts are a big-top three-ring circus with all the elephants gone rogue. Anyone who thinks it's okay for judges to exceed their Contitutional powers just because they happen to agree on a point of contention is just asking for trouble, because once the precedent of excess is established, it's almost impossible to correct. P.S: Fuck you osamabinbitchin' lib bastard.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 20, 2005 11:54 AM (0yYS2)

12 Damn all my typo's today. DAMN THEM TO HELL!!!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 20, 2005 12:05 PM (0yYS2)

13 "DG...I think snooping library records is crap." I agree, when there is no reason to do so. However, I want the feds to have the rights to investigate the reading habits of those they suspect of terrorism links. "Think of how easy it is to get into this country, fake ID's, absurd airport security, weak or nonexistent security involving major water supplies, buildings, bridges, etc. " Not sure what you mean here. Are you really trying to say that since these things are worrisome that they somehow negate the issues of terrorism in general? "Need a gun? Easier than opening a bank account. " I assume you are talking about the illegal purchases of firearms. Please remember that the 2nd holds that it is your right to own guns. "Those things worry me more than someone's reading habits. I want results and confidence, not big brother." Again, your arguments just don't hold water. If you suspect that someone might be a potential terrorist, and have good reasons for that suspicion, then why hamstring the police by not allowing them access to library records?

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 20, 2005 12:13 PM (jPCiN)

14 Howie, Good call. DG, The government isn't accessing the library or book purchasing activities of terrorists, they are doing it to American dissidents. Most think that the war is in Iraq. The real war is here at home and were losing badly.

Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 01:07 PM (/+dAV)

15 Greg, remember that in here American dissidents are pretty much viewed as terrorists. DG, man...if you have some pretty solid facts behind someone being a suspected terrorist, you should be able to go after them. This includes any records. The problem I have is in HOW that suspicion is established, not how preventative measures are carried out. I think this completely holds water, btw. I also don't see what you didn't get when talking about water supplies, bridges, etc. since these are major vulnerabilities in our major cities. Cripple or infect can be a nasty, but effective method. Anyway, I gotta run. I'll be back later after Greg gets banned again. IM, P.S. Damn you for making me agree with you so many times in the past week!

Posted by: osamabeenlibbin' at June 20, 2005 01:36 PM (p0lNZ)

16 DG: "If you suspect that someone might be a potential terrorist, and have good reasons for that suspicion, then why hamstring the police by not allowing them access to library records?" The government/police have never been 'hamstrung'. Previously the government needed at least a warrant and probable cause to access private records. The Fourth Amendment, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and case law provided that if the state wished to search you, it needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. Probable cause and a warrant are no longer needed. The government can now investigate the private records of anyone, for any reason it deems appropriate.

Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 01:48 PM (/+dAV)

17 "....increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." Many forget why all these issues are brought up in the Patriot Act to begin with. It was "too hard" to get warrants to search certain records, seize computers, etc. THAT'S what led to 9/11. The fear of treading on rights is what kept them from taking decisive action in way too many instances. They don't want to just snoop on any ordinary Joe-on-the-street. It's a total waste of time. They want the ability to do so if there is probable reason to do so. And I WANT them to search [insert suspect's name here] house or computer or library records if he gives good reason to do so.

Posted by: Oyster at June 20, 2005 01:50 PM (fl6E1)

18 "Probable cause and a warrant are no longer needed. The government can now investigate the private records of anyone, for any reason it deems appropriate." That is not the way I understand it. The police are still required to get a warrent, but do not have to tell the suspect that it is being served. I'm not saying I love it, but it does help to not have to show your cards before you are done investigating. I also don't want it to last forever. I like the sunset provisions and the conversations that we have on its renewal.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 20, 2005 02:00 PM (jPCiN)

19 Oyster: 'Many forget why all these issues are brought up in the Patriot Act to begin with. It was "too hard" to get warrants to search certain records, seize computers, etc. THAT'S what led to 9/11. The fear of treading on rights is what kept them from taking decisive action in way too many instances.' Horse puckey! David Schippers, Chief Council for the House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible conducting the impeachment against former President Clinton, went public revealing that prior to 9-11, many FBI agents had come to him informing him about the impending attacks. These agents knew the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of the terrorists' funding, etc., many months in advance of the 9/11 attacks. The FBI command pulled them off of their investigations into these terrorists and threatened them with the National Security Act saying that if they talked about any of the information pertaining to their investigations they would be prosecuted. Consequently, many of them sought the council of Mr. Schippers hoping to get somebody in the U.S. government to take action against these terrorists before their plan could be implemented. Mr. Schippers talked to many Congressmen and Senators, and tried to get a hold of Att. Gen. John Ashcroft, all only to get the run-around. Mr. Schippers is now legally representing at least ten of these FBI agents in a suit against the U.S. government in an attempt to subpoena their testimony, where they can then legally tell what they know and legally get it on record. The pre-9-11 investigation was obstructed by bureaucrats, not the courts, and only God knows why.

Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 02:16 PM (/+dAV)

20 WRONG!!!! The answer is : The consessions will be erased in conference after the Senate takes this up. The bill will be permanent. It will prove useful in the GWT but later the law will be turned inward on ourselves thereby striking a terrible blow to freedom. Thus causing greg to suffer a minor head explosion. He then will sell out and move to patagonia where he will raise sheep and Lamas. Bye Bye Next time Howie attempts to create links that go places. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Howie at June 20, 2005 03:46 PM (D3+20)

21 IM wrote "When the judiciary exceeds its legal bounds and begins to actively legislate from the bench with little or no regard for the Constitution or American legal and social tradition, then I think it doesn't matter what legislation Congress passes, we're screwed." Damn, you know it didn't register till just now, but I think I might have said those exact words about 5 years ago when the Florida recount was stopped! Though, Gore can wipe my ass with a thousand hanging chads 'cause I didn't like him either.

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 20, 2005 04:42 PM (p0lNZ)

22 The government is more than welcome to investigate my private records. I can't see the harm. That is being a patriot I have nothing to fear. Perhaps, some others have something to fear. If looking into my personal records or library books I have read helps root out those who would kill innocent people I say more power to them.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 23, 2005 01:07 AM (CBNGy)

23 GR: I don't think it's about that. I think most people are afraid of these powers being abused, or afraid to read something which might place them under suspicion. That's great that you have nothing to hide, but what if we lived in a country where your views expressed on these blogs got you arrested without trial or a lawyer to be held indefinitely? Many people who have no intentions on being or helping a terrorist have plenty to fear about the government intruding on their privacy.

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 23, 2005 12:21 PM (CYGDF)

24 What if? The truth is I don't live in a country like you describe. What if an elephant runs through my cattle fences tonight? Should I build an elephant proof fence just in case? The fact that Greg and Colon Babler haven't been arrested and hung for treason is proof that we do not live in a country where people are arrested for expressing their views. You have to come with a factual claim not an if to convince me. How many innocent lives can be saved? That should be the major concern.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 23, 2005 10:38 PM (CBNGy)

25 Which innocent lives...the blacks killed by your KKK or the Iraqis killed by our "smart bombs"?

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 24, 2005 12:59 PM (CYGDF)

26 osamabeenthere: Neither of those. I'm far more interested in the number of whites attacked, robbed and killed by blacks today in the United States. Read the papers and face reality. The muggers are not white people wearing white sheets. There is more than a few areas of New Orleans I would like to drop you off in tonight. If you lived through it you would have a serious attitude adjustment. A real mind clearing experience. Reality will wake you up. A 38 slug through my stomach for not giving up my wallet 3 years ago woke me up. Result. 4 months in the hospital for me. One black mugger shot in the ass and now doing life in Angola. One black mugger escaped only to be killed a month later during a robbery. What happened in the past, if true I had nothing to do with. Nor do I hold todays Germans and Japanese responsible for what happened 60 years ago. Stupid to bring up or hold responsible todays Germans and Japanese for what happened under a different political climate. Also stupid to constantly remind them of it. This also applies to the stupid shouting of what the Glorious Knights of the Klu Klux Klan did nor did not do 60 years ago. As to the Iraqis killed by smart bombs. Pity. All they have to do is lay down their arms and turn in the terrorists and it would all stop. Pity they are too stupid and too stuborn to see the writing on the wall. If the scum bag islamic terrorists you feel pity for were not consentrating their efforts in Iraq they would be consentrating their resources in Europe and America. My personal opinion. Better them than mine. Better you than me. And I will do everything and anything to make it turn out that way. Also, so I am very clear. Muslims are the biggest threat to peace in the history of the world. More than the commies, more than the facists, more than the nazis. Everywhere this gutter religion is practiced. Nothing but trouble, killing, pain and suffering. Look around the world. Or are you as stupid and stuborn as the fucking islamofacists.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 24, 2005 09:44 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Islamic Thinkers Society are part of a vangaurd of fifth columnists who are enemies of the United States of America. While they may disclaim the methods which Osama bin Laden uses, they do not disclaim his goals. The group wishes to install Taliban like government in all Muslim countries unified under a single Caliphate. Eventually the group wishes to see a global Caliphate replacing the nation-state system.

We have documented the anti-American and pro-jihadi activities of The Islamic Thinkers Society over the past year. For instance, in April they were seen on the streets of New York with signs saying or depicting (as described by Kristine Withers):

US the real terrorist, oppose the war on terror, God hates the US because they have Homosexuals, restoration of the Caliphate, pictures of Abu Gharab, 9/11 pictures saying it was justified, etc.

They were telling me how wicked America and I was. A
member of the group was also telling me, "we will kill you", and "next time we will get all of NYC".

Oh Muslims! Do you know your enemy? Isn't it obvious?...

The so-called terrorists are the only people who truly fear Allah. ... They are the only worthy causes, and the mighty superpower only fears them

Now the group is claiming there is an organized smear campaign out to distort their peaceful message and give Islam a bad name.

But even as they attempt a propaganda campaign out to rehabilitate their name, they reveal the truly evil nature of their goals.

From their website, with commentary in brackets:

Our objective is to resume the Islamic way of life to which will fulfill the purpose of the aim. Our objective is to bring back the apparatus that was destroyed in 1924 i.e. Khilafah [ie, Caliphate which united Sunni Muslims until the end of the Ottoman empire]. Indeed it was the Khilafah that united the Muslim Ummah under one flag, one land, one border, and one leader [This, of course, is not true since Shia Muslims did not recognize the same succession of Caliphs as did Sunnis]. It was the Khilafah which served as the appartus to make sure that Tawheed ['unification', used here to indicate the oneness of faith in the umma, or Islamic nation, under a single religious head] manifested in all ascpect [sic] in the Muslim Ummah's affairs. Surely, anyone who accepts any other system than Allah's Shari'ah is worshipping the one who has put his laws in place of the laws of Allah [in other words, democratic lawmaking with it's assumption that power derives from the people is un-Islamic]. This is a major form of shirk and anyone who commits a major shirk has left Islam. [Remember, the maximum penalty for leaving Islam is death. Therefore, any Muslim who advocates Western style liberal democracy is a heretic, according to the Islamic Thinkers Society. This is essentially the same argument used by Osama bin Laden in his justification for attacking states like Saudi Arabia. It is exactly the same arguement used by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when he attacks the Iraqi government. It is exactly the same argument used when Ansar al-Sunnah beheads Turkish truck drivers. They are heretics and deserve death.].....

Having given these few evidences, is just to show the importance of having an Islamic State where it will serve as the mechanism to protect & nurture the Muslim Ummah with the correct understanding as well as the correct practicality of Tawheed. [Like most utopians, Salafists like the Islamic Thinkers Society believe that with the renewing of the Caliphate and the subjegation of the Islamic world to a single authority, the Caliph, will usher in a golden age. Like the Communist utopians before them, though, such a state would obviously be horribly oppressive.] This all goes towards purifying Tawheed as well as fulfilling the aim of every Muslim which is to do ibadat to Allah s.w.t. This is what we, as part of Islamic Thinkers Society strive for. To create the ideal Islamic society, where the furqan(criterion) for the individuals as well as the rulers will be the Qur'an & Sunnah [sayings of the Prophet] and the Qur'an & Sunnah only [that is to say, not only are individuals required to follow Islam as a form of personal adherence to righteousness, in the way that other religious people might, but legal authority must be derived from the Quran as well. eg, all forms of government other than Taliban like states based on Islamic Law are illegitimate] . As always, our struggle is intellectual & political. [First, they disclaim violence...but then....] To us, this is a matter of life & death. A matter of jannah [paradise, eg, heaven] & jahannam [hell-eg, those opposed to the Salafist paradigm are heretics and going to hell]. It requires seriousness, dedication, & sabr [uncomplaining dedication].

Hat tip: Aaron over at Internet Haganah.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:44 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 660 words, total size 6 kb.

There was an election in Iran yesterday, or what passes for an election in a country that proclaims my toilet paper (the Quran) to be the highest law of the land. Persians were asked to vote either for hard line Mullahs who want severe oppression or moderate Mullahs who only want a moderate amount of oppression. Either way, the fatwas are to keep on a rolling against every one and everything (but me!). What type of drugs do you have to be on to describe Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as a reformist or a moderate when the guy supports terrorism and a Jew free Middle East?

Oh, and check this out from Will Franklin who almost gets himself arrested for attempting to report on the Iranian elections in Houston. Yes, a nation that we have no formal diplomatic ties to and which is a state sponsor of terrorism was allowed to run polling places on U.S. soil. Gateway Pundit reports on a polling station in St. Louis and Publius Pundit from another location.

Check out what the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini says to Christopher Hitchens:

I stand," he tells me calmly, "for the complete separation of religion and the state." In terms that would make the heart of a neocon soar like a hawk, he goes on to praise President Bush's State of the Union speech, to warn that the mullahs cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, and to use the term "Free World" without irony: "Only the Free World, led by America, can bring democracy to Iran."

Zawahiri crawls out of his cave to announce to the world his NAMBLA membership will be renewed.

The Taliban didn't get that memo from Howard Dean in which they directed to lay down their arms and give us no more problems since the U.N. approved that invasion and is in charge of rebuilding there. Yup, their still at it and have taken 18 police hostage.

The lunatics in the Arab world are at it again: Zarqawi is an American agent.

Hi, I'm Bono and I didn't know all that Muslims took that stoning shit seriously.

KG over at the California Mafia notices that one of the men arrested in the Lodi al Qaeda ring was seen at a 9/11 peace service. Not strange at all if one knows about the Islamic practice of taqiyah, or permissible lying. It also could be explained by the fact that many radical Muslims do believe in world peace and unity. Remember Darth Vader's dreams were of peace and order for the galaxy--which could only be insured by a heavy handed tyranny. So to many MUslims believe that once Islam dominates the world then love, peace, and joy. The utopian caliphate is the long-term strategic goal of al Qaeda and other Salafist groups.

And would it shock you to find out that the head of The Islamic Center of El Paso was taken into custody for an 'administrative immigration violations'?? Remember, 'lying about belonging to a terrorist organization' is not the same as 'belonging to a terrorist organization'......

In Yemen 11 al Qaeda terrorists were just sprung by an appeals court. This is the place where the USS Cole was attacked and is an 'ally' in the GWOT.

Two jihadis in Michigan to be sentenced and a grad student at The University of Arkansas arrested for his plans to do exactly what Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, and a majority of his professor's rhetoric (if believed) compelled him to do--become a Jew killing terrorist.

Cassandra, over at Villainous Company, has decided that terror is not the enemy, but ignorance, and has put the MSM in the crosshairs.

John from Crossroads of Arabia notes that some in Saudi Arabia are looking to Iraq as a success story.

The guys over at Move America Forward have started an I Heart Gitmo campaign. I love it. Slap that bumper sticker on and where this t-shirt to your next poli sci class....

A former gulag prisoner speaks out against Amnesty International, Dick Durbin, and the idiots of the Left drawing comparisons to gitmo.

Durbin sort of apologizes, but not really......CENSURE NOW!! Speaking of, a new alliance has formed called Blogs for Censure. Needless to say, I'm a charter member.

Confederate Yankee on Dick Durbin alienating the dead vote. (SFW: no gay porn in post)

Lileks is, well, Lileks.

Dave Burge, known to the rank-and-file as Iowahawk, is back and he has found some of the personal correspondence of Dick Durbin.

Cameron has penned a poem in Dick's honor.

And for the definitive last word on Durbin, you have to see Cox and Forkum.

John Conyers (Moonbat-MI).

Let the analogies to the Greek gods killing their Titan parents begin. Blog-son Dan Riehl is set to be on Fox News tonight. If you are interested in the you-know-who missing in Aruba case you'll do no better than checking in with Dan over at Riehl World View or with Red and Tom over at Scared Monkeys. These two blogs consistently beat the MSM to breaking news in Aruba.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:04 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 867 words, total size 8 kb.

(Queens, New York) Updating a story from April when two 16-year-old illegal alien girls were arrested for terrorism and immigration concerns and held for several weeks. One of the girls, Tashnuba Hayder, was forced to return to her native country of Bangladesh after the FBI discovered she visited "an Internet chat room where she took notes on sermons by a charismatic Islamic cleric in London, a sheik who has long been accused of encouraging suicide bombings."

Apparently, the other 16-year-old girl, name withheld, was not considered to be a potential threat and, although she is also an illegal alien, she was released from custody and allowed to go home to Queens. Go figure.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:58 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

1 What's one more irate Moslem in the Big Apple?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 17, 2005 07:09 PM (6ikIv)

2 Not many more, and they'll have to rename it the Big Falafel.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 17, 2005 07:47 PM (0yYS2)

3 I don't know - I'm leaning more toward the "Big Couscous".

Posted by: Oyster at June 17, 2005 09:39 PM (YudAC)

4 Holy Facism, Batman! You are all sooooo bright, creative and yet so blind/gullible? Or is it a genetic defect in the children of (the neo)conservative America? I was once a Republican. No longer. How can all of you with your smarts, education and all information all the time overexposure support an administration that is in bed with the very people that blew up the WTC? Are most of you still too young to drive? Fuel prices are up 28% in a year...we own Iraq, the 2nd largest oil field ON THE PLANET. Don't you believe that whatever Amerika says still goes on this planet? Of course, it does. Mr. "404" Bush should never have been allowed to run for Pres. His family had too many ties to the terrorist-energy community. Open your eyes. Do some research. Get in some balanced reading; House of Bush, House of Saud, for example. It's frightening, my young conservative fundamentalists. And we all know what fundamentalism leads to in the Middle East,...suicide bombers

Posted by: Anne Gabriel at June 18, 2005 12:05 AM (ky1bj)

5 ..and you know what Micheal Moore viewers leads to in America,... Idiots who troll boards.

Posted by: dave at June 18, 2005 12:19 AM (fsJ2z)

6 It is getting near the end of the Bush Regime. The House of Bush is falling and there is nothing you can do.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 18, 2005 04:12 AM (ScqM8)

7 http://jeffmilner.com/backmasking.htm Interresting subliminal messaging. Especially the Britney. That explains why many people like her eventhough she ain't looking that specially hot.

Posted by: A Finn at June 18, 2005 06:07 AM (lGolT)

8 Anne: The Nazi Chimp Bush Blew up the WTC Conspiracy debate is a few posts down.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 18, 2005 06:48 AM (6ikIv)

9 Time to spam with opinions and prophecies: Media is still trying to make north believe they need to have less kids and be gay because south has a baby boom. North can feed it's extra population, it's the friggin' south that needs to be castrated. If there are no destructive terrorist attacks in West-Europe or North America, war on terror ends before December 1st this year. News about troubles in the Far East will start getting more and more space in the media in order to make invading North Korea a justified act of 'peace'. If someone kills Bush before his reign ends, his worldpolice-politics will be continued with 'honouring the leader'-excuse, so I think he'll be killed this September or the next, so they can link it to WTC and terrorists in 'American idiot' -minds. Rusty, Greyrooster and Babers turn out to be Dick Cheneys schizophrenic illusions after the old git gets a heart attack and dies.

Posted by: A Finn at June 18, 2005 08:05 AM (lGolT)

10 Anne, who has gone off her meds again, blurted out: "Holy Facism, Batman!" Not so fast boy blunder, remember what Alfred says about posting things to the internet that make you look like an idiot. You are all sooooo bright, creative and yet so blind/gullible? Or is it a genetic defect in the children of (the neo)conservative America? Ah apparently you didn't remember. It's a bat-spanking for you then. "I was once a Republican." I doubt it. You may have called yourself a Republican, like you probably call yourself Princess Leia at parties. Neither is true. "No longer." We can all rest easier now. Of course we could all tell this by the fact that our Joooooooooooooish mind control rays just bounced right off your tin-foil Mickey Mouse hat. "How can all of you with your smarts, education and all information all the time overexposure support an administration that is in bed with the very people that blew up the WTC?" "All the time overexposure"? What the hell is that? Is it like: "All your base are belong to us?" Did you listen to that radio program last night? I heard that too. But I didn't sit there gullibly swalling everything that was said. It was neither Republicans, nor Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosssss, nor spacemonkeys who blew up the WTC. It was a couple of airplanes piloted by peaceful Arab Muslims. There is tape, you know. "Are most of you still too young to drive?" Yeah, in my state they don't let you have a license until you are 45. your adult children have to co-sign. "Fuel prices are up 28% in a year...we own Iraq, the 2nd largest oil field ON THE PLANET." Which INCONTROVERTABLY PROVES that we invaded for oil! Ride the short bus much? "Don't you believe that whatever Amerika says still goes on this planet?" Of course it does dear. Of course it does. "Of course, it does." I said that. But I was being partonizing. You, on the other hand, are just being sad. "Mr. "404" Bush should never have been allowed to run for Pres. His family had too many ties to the terrorist-energy community." Nice hyphenation. What kind of energy terrorist are hiding in your bushes, hmmm? "Open your eyes." "Blink" AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh... The light! The horrible light of truth! Oh, sorry, I was facing the window and the sun was coming in. What at first was overwhelming and disorienting is quickly found to be nothing special. "Do some research." Which comic books do you recommend? "Get in some balanced reading; House of Bush, House of Saud, for example." Does it have lots of "POW!", and "BAM!"? Ah, balanced. Of course. Actually I did browse it heavily at the bookstore. Too many rhetorical leaps, unless of course you can take a typical business relationship in a world you will never understand, and extrapolate it into a cabal bent on world domination. Something tells me you can. "It's frightening, my young conservative fundamentalists." Hehe, in my head that sounds like: "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!" It may be frightening to you, but I suspect a lot of tother things are too. There is help, you know. The nice doctors don't want to implant (yet another) mind control device, they just want to help you. Now come down off the roof dear before the nice policemen have to tazer you. "And we all know what fundamentalism leads to in the Middle East,...suicide bombers " You're all over the map now. Tell ya what, you just let us know when you see a family of well-dressed white people in a minivan loaded with explosives on their way to vacation Bible school. When you see them, call DNC headquarters and tell them "YEEEEARGH!". It's a secret code; they'll know what you mean. You have to keep an eye on those Republicans, you know, they go to church and everything. Dangerous lot. Well I'm off to add a couple of layers of foil to the house. The Jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssssss might be close by.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 18, 2005 08:11 AM (0yYS2)

11 Downs Syndrome Meme drooled: "It is getting near the end of the Bush Regime. The House of Bush is falling and there is nothing you can do." Hehe, you guys are killing me this morning. On reading that, I instantly envisioned a fat guy sitting in his mother's basement, rubbing his hands together. He smells like BO and Doritos. He is lonely. Soooooo lonely... But you forgot to add: "MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!". I will forgive you for not having thunder and lightning though, as Dr. Rusty doesn't allow such things. The fascist. Oh and by the way, if by "falling" you mean that he will leave office in a little over three years; yeah, we knew that. And there is nothing we'd want to do about it, as that's what the Constitution says must happen. It was only your beloved commie-lover FDR who overstayed his term. And I have three words for you: Condi in '08!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 18, 2005 08:19 AM (0yYS2)

12 (In James Earl Jones' voice) All the tinfoil in the galaxy won't save you young jedi moonbats! You don't know the riddle of steel! Oh, wait... sorry, Karl, getting my scripts mixed up. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!! (heavy breathing) MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Posted by: Darth-Rove at June 18, 2005 08:25 AM (0yYS2)

13 Anne, the loony bin is thataway ---------------->

Posted by: Carlos at June 18, 2005 08:50 AM (8e/V4)

14 Jeez. To Anne Gabriel and Downing Street and one I will not mention: WTF? Do you guys have information on this particular situation that the rest of us don't have? Please, share it with the rest of the class. You've gone off on a tangent that the rest of us have heard before and summarily reject. Try to stay on topic.

Posted by: Oyster at June 18, 2005 08:54 AM (YudAC)

15 first off, i just turned 39, so am i legally old enough to drive,Anne???...second, no shit that Bush wont be president again..he can only run for two terms, so why is it that these liberals have to bring that up all the time???..big freakin deal, you freakin Democrats with Dean, Hillary and Kerry as youre best choices for 2008, sure as hell arent gonna win so HAHAHA right back at you, smartass....we own Iraq???...gee thats a good one, think ill move myself and the family on over and buy me up some land and start a nice cattle ranch...YEEHAAA!!!...dopes....and i think the Chinese have alot to say about what goes on this planet as well, they are the next superpower on this planet, its coming, maybe not tomorow, but soon, so the US doesnt run everything lady, get a grip...oh and i guess a KNOWN womanizer and adulterer like Willy Clinton was okay to run as president, huh???..nice...and yea, i do lots of reading, not just online, i have an entire library right here in my home...i check on stuff when i have some doubts when i read a new book i pick up, as i know how liberals LOVEEEEEEEEE to rewrite history all the time...oh, and many other people had/have ties to the Saud family....gee, isnt Soros one of em too???....isnt his greedy little fingers making trouble all over the place and not a word is said about him in the media???...biased a little???....whose the ones not paying attention now, my liberal goons???....you guys need to all get on the next shuttle launch and have NASA drop you all off on the moon

Posted by: THANOS35 at June 18, 2005 09:00 AM (kDAye)

16 "Downs Syndrome Meme drooled" LMAO! you're on a roll. I'm so bored with these moonbats it's all I could do to muster any response for them.

Posted by: Carlos at June 18, 2005 09:08 AM (8e/V4)

17 I wonder what kinds of psychological tests the armed forces in Finland have.

Posted by: Brad at June 18, 2005 09:46 AM (pO1tP)

18 They have no tests at all, since the health care system is supposed to notice stuff like that. Murderous, suicidal people with no respect for their own lives or consideration for the families of their enemies get things done better in a warzone than thinking sensitive people with sympathy and will to live... Besides, not in there yet. Gonna finish 2. lvl education (lukio) first.

Posted by: A Finn at June 18, 2005 10:28 AM (lGolT)

19 Oh, commanding officers need to be tested though, so the brutalities and senseless destruction can be blamed on a soldiers temporary or constant insanity instead of commanders. Justifies HUUUUUUUGE enemy casualties with minimal international attention.

Posted by: A Finn at June 18, 2005 10:33 AM (lGolT)

20 Speaking of terrorism in the United States, we were attacked with Anthrax. How soon we forget. The letters contained a specific type of weaponized Anthrax made by a United States military lab which had been claiming for a lot of years that it wasn't doing that sort of thing any more. The anthrax came from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick, Md. http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/anthrax-probe.htm The person who created the letter wrote what they thought a letter from Arabs would look like, so that the phrases "Death to Israel", and "Allah is Great" (a real Muslim says either "Allah Achbar" or "God is Great") would point the finger of blame for the Anthrax at Arabs. And that means that all the references to Allah and Israel are a carefully crafted hoax, designed to trick Americans into thinking that Arab Muslims were to blame for the Anthrax letters. There are two suspects accused of being the source of the Anthrax letters. The first is Dr. Philip Zack, who was caught on camera entering the storage area where the Anthrax was kept without proper authorization after being fired from his job for a racially motivated attack on an Egyptian coworker. http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxmissingarmylab.html The second suspect is the more well known Dr. Stephen Hill, accused (and re-accused and re-accused) by Dr. Barbara Rosenberg although no actual evidence of his involvement has surfaced. Regardless of whether one thinks Dr. Zack or Dr. Hill is the culprit, neither man is an Arab Muslim, which means that the above letters are not evidence of a terrorist attack. They are evidence of an intentional deception against the people of the United States; a deliberate frame-up of middle eastern Arabs for acts of terror committed inside the United States. The day before Anthrax was discovered , a letter arrived at a police department claiming that the Egyptian coworker that caused Dr. Zach to get fired was the one that sent the Anthrax. This was a big slip up as the Anthrax had not yet been discovered until the next day. Again, someone trying to frame an A-Rab. Probably Dr. Zack. He has barely been investigated compared to Dr. Hill. Dr. Zack is a member of a certain religion of peace. He is rumored to have dual citizenship. He should be the prime suspect. Dr. Rosenberg, also a member of a certain religion of peace, has kept the focus off Dr. Zack and on Dr. Hill. Go figure! We need to solve this. Call your congress critters and ask why Dr. Zack hasnÂ’t been fully investigated. This crime MUST be solved.

Posted by: greg at June 18, 2005 10:40 AM (/+dAV)

21 Ummmm... When was greg unbanned? Oh well. Greg rules, believe him, Bushian fanatics. He is the voice of uncertain truth and forgotten fact.

Posted by: A Finn at June 18, 2005 10:48 AM (lGolT)

22 Well then, I guess were over that hurdle.

Posted by: Brad at June 18, 2005 10:55 AM (pO1tP)

23 ItÂ’s 9 am here around Seattle, IÂ’m going out for my run. Finn, as long as you are predicting future events, can you perhaps come up with a couple of good stock picks for me? Just stare at that midnight sun for a few hours and the ticker symbols will just come to you. Later.

Posted by: Brad at June 18, 2005 11:04 AM (pO1tP)

24 For an in depth analysis of the Anthrax case, go to: http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2038 Yes, it's from antiwar.com But Justin Raimondo is a paleo-Republican who writes exceptionally well and backs up every sentence with an article from the MSM. For example, the original Hartford Courant article reporting Dr. Zack's midnight break in into his former place of employment, Ft. Detrick, many months after he had been fired. It is facinating reading.

Posted by: greg at June 18, 2005 11:15 AM (/+dAV)

25 Fascinating!

Posted by: greg at June 18, 2005 11:17 AM (/+dAV)

26 Brad, I recommend a basket of asian currencies. Include the Chinese currency, the Renminbi. Although it is currently pegged to the dollar, meaning you will just tread water with it for now, should it be revalued in the next few years it will likely go up by 50% or more. The major risks are a world wide down turn in the economy and the possibility that the US will go to war with China. I think it's a good play for the next decade anyways.

Posted by: greg at June 18, 2005 11:25 AM (/+dAV)

27 Thanks Greg, My oldest daughter is dangerously close to college age and the education mutual fund is dangerously under funded. Sort of like an airline pension plan. I was hoping Finn could give me a sure thing based on the special gifts he has. I am paying Catholic school tuition for 3 kids and putting away money for college is tough. YÂ’all have a good weekend

Posted by: Brad at June 18, 2005 12:24 PM (pO1tP)

28 I predict europrices dropping until the constitution and support issues are dealt with, after which the euro-dollar buying rate will go up to 2$:1€, so buy millions of euros when the price reaches 0.8$:1€ and you double your money in 2 months or less. (prediction 85% accurate, fortune teller takes no responsibility for monetary losses)

Posted by: A Finn at June 18, 2005 12:31 PM (lGolT)

29 Greg, I agree that the smearing of Steven Hatfill is outrageous, not only has he been "convicted" in the press, he has also lost jobs, and the respect of his community and has been referred to over and over again as the #1 suspect even though there is nothing to link him to the crime other than his former employers projects for the U.S Government. FBI agents even ran over his foot for Christ's sake. I doubt he will ever get a formal apology, even if he did it would not get the press coverage that made him the lead suspect, thus it would be worthless.

Posted by: dave at June 18, 2005 12:44 PM (fsJ2z)

30 Welcome back Greg. The visitors we've been getting over the past few days make you seem reasonable by comparison. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more reasonable. Just remember to behave or it's back to the basement for you!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 18, 2005 02:00 PM (0yYS2)

31 Finn wrote: "They have no tests at all, since the health care system is supposed to notice stuff like that. Murderous, suicidal people with no respect for their own lives or consideration for the families of their enemies get things done better in a warzone than thinking sensitive people with sympathy and will to live... Besides, not in there yet. Gonna finish 2. lvl education (lukio) first." And... "Oh, commanding officers need to be tested though, so the brutalities and senseless destruction can be blamed on a soldiers temporary or constant insanity instead of commanders. Justifies HUUUUUUUGE enemy casualties with minimal international attention." Huh? Is this posted to the wrong thread, or did I miss something?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 18, 2005 02:08 PM (0yYS2)

32 Definitely doesn't belong here, but Brad was wondering about the mental health check ups at 09:46 AM.

Posted by: A Finn at June 18, 2005 03:40 PM (lGolT)

33 Thanks Improbulus, Good to be back. I'll try to behave.

Posted by: greg at June 18, 2005 06:31 PM (/+dAV)

34 What I would like to know is why in the Hell don't we ship back not just these two, but every sorry ass illegal alien who we can get our hands on. Isn't the definition of Illegal alien one who is not in the country legally. Kick their ass back home and charge that country the transportion fee.

Posted by: Butch at June 20, 2005 02:14 PM (Gqhi9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Whoa! Just took ten minutes to check in on the blogosphere today, really busy with the family, and lo and behold the damn that was the pent up anger at the Leftosphere's moral equivocation has burst.

Big thanks for the resounding show of support.

64 Trackbacks went through. I actually had so many trackbacks that our system thought we were getting spammed and shut the trackback function down several times. Dozens of other links with no trackbacks, including Glenn Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, Roger L. Simon and Andrew Sullivan......thanks for forwarding the post to the bigwhigs folks!

Technorati lists the post as the third most cited on the blogosphere today.....

TTLB lists the post as the most cited in the blogosphere today......

Two lessons to be learned from this. First, a lot of people are fed up with the Left's comparisons of the U.S. to genocidal regimes and are outraged at their moral equivocation.

Second, even though the Llama Butchers mounted Wonkette first, it took a Jawa to make Kos the bitch.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:09 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'm not surprised you got that much attention. You keep hitting the nail on the head and people notice. Keep up the great work.

Posted by: Buckley F. Williams at June 17, 2005 06:22 PM (O2fD/)

2 Thanks, Rusty. When do we get our money???

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 17, 2005 07:06 PM (6ikIv)

3 Well done Rusty. Strong work as usual! M.W.

Posted by: MIGHTY WHITEY at June 17, 2005 07:35 PM (W/Zuh)

4 Darth-Rove says you are a good minion.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 17, 2005 08:00 PM (0yYS2)

5 "it took a Jawa to make Kos the bitch." Can we get that on a t-shirt?

Posted by: JimK at June 17, 2005 08:11 PM (FHlsf)

6 How do you say "Who's your dadday now?" in Jawanese?

Posted by: phin at June 17, 2005 08:48 PM (DGPlf)

7 Yankee: I know what you mean. I'm getting visuals too. ACK.

Posted by: Oyster at June 17, 2005 09:50 PM (YudAC)

8 Not a surprise he's got a Sand People fetish.....

Posted by: caltechgirl at June 17, 2005 10:57 PM (eV5t9)

9 It's high time for the Leftazoids to put up or shut up. They need to either choose the side of America, which would be first, or drop their idiotic "we support America" and just say it loud. Notice how few of them left for other countries after the election, like they promised? Soros didn't join a monastary, did he? They are all a bunch of scumbag America haters.

Posted by: William Teach at June 18, 2005 07:30 AM (HxpPK)

10 i hope that more and more Americans wake up to the clear and present danger that the leftist liberals and their terrorist allies make up to the USA , really the entire planet....nothing like a good wake up call

Posted by: THANOS35 at June 18, 2005 09:03 AM (kDAye)

11 Thanks all!

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 18, 2005 10:23 AM (JQjhA)

12 Actually, we were getting spammed. It was just unfortunate that we were getting spammed at the same time your real trackbacks were coming through.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 19, 2005 11:39 AM (+S1Ft)

13 Leftofascist Daily Kos has deleted my comments and then blacklisted my IP just for questioning their asinine "peak oil" theory. If you simply say there is 8 times as much oil in Alberta (oil sands at $20 extraction cost) as there is in Saudi Arabia - they will black list you.

Posted by: sharifabad at June 20, 2005 01:16 AM (nGZO6)

14 64 Trackbacks went through. I actually had so many trackbacks that our system thought we were getting spammed and shut the trackback function down several times. Dozens of other links with no trackbacks, including Glenn Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, Roger L. Simon and Andrew Sullivan......thanks for forwarding the post to the bigwhigs folks!

Posted by: metoo at August 05, 2005 02:42 PM (/ayi9)

15 Two lessons to be learned from this. First, a lot of people are fed up with the Left's comparisons of the U.S. to genocidal regimes and are outraged at their moral equivocation.

Posted by: me horoscope gratuite at August 06, 2005 05:45 PM (LbPEb)

16 64 Trackbacks went through. I actually had so many trackbacks that our system thought we were getting spammed and shut the trackback function down several times. Dozens of other links with no trackbacks, including Glenn Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, Roger L. Simon and Andrew Sullivan......thanks for forwarding the post to the bigwhigs folks!

Posted by: Telecharger winzip at August 13, 2005 03:55 AM (uVtDv)

17 Dozens of other links with no trackbacks, including Glenn Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, Roger L. Simon and Andrew Sullivan......thanks for forwarding the post to the bigwhigs folks!

Posted by: merisol at August 18, 2005 04:02 AM (e9tBG)

18 Nice blog!! really useful information

Posted by: telecharger emule at August 18, 2005 05:15 PM (Eikdh)

19 Great post, i found it very interesting

Posted by: April at September 07, 2005 11:15 PM (X1a5U)

20 Interesting post, i like your blog very much telecharger emule

Posted by: Telecharger Emule at September 12, 2005 09:53 AM (1MiCy)

21 nice... i like your butt

Posted by: Tugjobs at October 05, 2005 09:23 AM (uQM1P)

22 i agree with you!

Posted by: Assparade at October 05, 2005 09:24 AM (uQM1P)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Rusty, I hope you don't mind my posting on this...

h/t World Magazine Blog.

Via AOL news, we learn that Jeb Bush has gotten a prosecutor to investigate the causes behind Terri Schiavo's collapse 15 years ago.

Gov. Jeb Bush said Friday that a prosecutor has agreed to investigate why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago, citing an alleged time gap between when her husband found her and when he called 911.

Bush said his request for the probe was not meant to suggest wrongdoing by Michael Schiavo.

''It's a significant question that during this ordeal was never brought up,'' Bush told reporters.

Michael Schiavo's attorney has said his client called for help right away.

In a letter faxed to Pinellas-Pasco County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, the governor said Michael Schiavo testified in a 1992 medical malpractice trial that he found his wife collapsed at 5 a.m. on Feb. 25, 1990, and he said in a 2003 television interview that he found her about 4:30 a.m. He called 911 at 5:40 a.m.

Yeah, I'd say that's a disparity. Wouldn't you call 911 right away if you found your wife collapsed at that late hour? And why wasn't she in bed with him where she belonged?

Many questions still remain unanswered about this case, in my opinion. It'll be interesting to see what this prosecutor finds.

For the record, though, I'd also like to say that if this isn't an attempt on Jeb Bush's part to curry favor with the evangelical voters, I don't know what is. Too bad he didn't think of this before Terri died.

Visit Suzanne's blog

Posted by: Suzanne at 01:38 PM | Comments (56) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

By Demosophist

The Glittering Eye made the following comment about my distributed post comparing Wretchard's contention that we're approaching a "Hansell-Lemay moment," with Larry Johnson's contention that we're approaching a "looming debacle:"

I think the most important implied point in AR's post [I cross-post to AR as well as the Jawa Report] is the need for the political leadership here to shore up morale and public opinion. This is an area in which the Bush Administration has been consistently weak.

Posted by: Demosophist at 10:15 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 564 words, total size 4 kb.

(Tampa, Florida) According to attorney John Fitzgibbons, former teacher and sex kitten Debra Lafave, 24, has been offered a plea deal by the prosecution that would resolve the court cases in both Hillsborough and Marion Counties.

Lafave (photo) and her attorney appeared in court Thursday morning to discuss the possible plea agreement. The state's psychological evaluation of Lafave was given to Fitzgibbons and will be reviewed prior to deciding on whether to accept the offer. It's believed that Lafave may be facing some serious jail time even though she claimed to be insane when she committed the sex crimes with the 14-year-old boy.

Last November, Lafave pleaded not guilty to four counts of lewd and lascivious battery and one count of lewd and lascivious exhibition. Each carries a possible 15-year prison term. Ouch! Another hearing has been scheduled for July 18.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 01:35 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 2 kb.

If any one else wants to post on Friday, feel free. I'm going to spend the day doing other things.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:13 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

There goes my last chance of happiness! Not that I know what Enzyte is....er...I'm not even sure what it's for....I'm telling you, those aren't my 'natural male enhancement' pills....that's not my bag, baby....

Star Telegram:

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott joined five other states Wednesday in suing Steve Warshak, an Ohio businessman who owns a collection of dietary supplement and drug companies. Abbott's suit, filed in state District Court in Dallas, alleges fraudulent advertising and deceptive billing practices.

One of Warshak's supplements is Enzyte, advertised as "the once-a-day tablet for natural male enhancement." The ads feature a blissful Bob, smiling in gratitude to Enzyte.....

Warshak's ads resemble pharmaceutical ads, but the attorney general's office said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved any of the products.

"This guy is making a lot of money off of claims that are simply untrue," said Tom Kelley, a spokesman for Abbott....

And here should have been clue #1. You know that little Latin phrase in the commercials they run in small print and in parenthesis? It says suffragium asotas. It's just a gimmick to make it look legit, like it's a real drug. It's not. Actually suffragium asotas simply means enhanced sexuality and it's not even proper Latin.

I guess it's back to the old pump....

Posted by: Rusty at 08:43 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

What's wrong with this picture? When WWII was declared the overwhelming response of the German community was to condemn en masse the Nazi front of the German Bund. Even though Japanese Americans were treated far more poorly than the Germans, the response from that community was to enlist in the Army in an effort to prove their loyalty to the nation and ease the oversuspicious among us.

How does the Muslim community respond to any and every indictment against suspected terrorists? By screaming intimidation and ethnic profiling.

Via the California Mafia we learn that two indictments have been handed down in the Lodi al Qaeda ring and how the Muslim community responds to finding out about the traitors living among them. Sacramento Bee (subscription):

Two Lodi men accused by the government of connections to terrorist training in Pakistan were indicted Thursday by a federal grand jury in Sacramento.
Humid Hayat is charged with two counts of making a false statement to FBI agents, and his father, Umer Hayat, is charged with one count of making a false statement to FBI agents.

The indictment says Hamid Hayat was lying when he denied being with any type of terrorist organization and denied attending any type of terrorist training camp.

The indictment says Umer Hayat was lying when he denied having any first-hand knowledge of terrorist training camps in Pakistan.

And which two groups are filing the complaint? Come on....do I really have to even say?

Also on Thursday, a coalition of Muslim civil rights groups and other organizations announced they were filing complaints of "intimidating tactics" against the FBI along with a formal request for records of its investigation into possible terrorist connections in Lodi....

The tactics involve denial of medical treatment, threats of arrest or deportation to coerce people, and denied access to legal representation, said Basim Elkarra of the Council on American-Islamic Relations of Sacramento Valley.

"This must be done in the way that respects people's rights," said Mark Schlosberg of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

Our Lodi al Qaeda cell archives are here and continually updated.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:08 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

If you haven't figured it out already, I'm a bit pissed today. Has the Left completely gone insane? Have the forgotten the kind of people we are fighting?

Perhaps we have made some mistakes along the way in our fight against nihilistic Islamofascists, but so the f*ck what? It's like the words of Jesus turned upside down. These asswipes are so focused on the microscopic motes in our own eyes that they ignore the 30 foot beam sticking out of our enemies'.

It's as if 9/11 never happened, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi never sawed anybody's head off, and Saddam Hussein was just your every day run-of-the mill dictator that the U.S. hadn't been at war with for 11 years.

I've had it.

Please see this post by Ace on why the prisoners at Gitmo aren't criminals and shouldn't be treated as such.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:45 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

The heroes of Raven 42 all received medals for their heroic action in fighting off a contingent of Michael Moore's Minutemen as they attacked a civilian convoy in Western Iraq in March. You can read about their exploits here. The seven ten (thanks Barb) members of Raven 42 (three of whom were wounded), the MP unit guarding the convoy, who survived the initial attack by between 40-50 terrorists saved the convoy from sure extermination. If this is the same attack that was claimed by al Qaeda in March, the civilians and every one else would have been surely murdered. These soldiers killed 24 terrorists, wounded 6 more (two who later died), and captured one.

Way to go troops. America, f*ck yeah!

UPDATE: Citzcom reminds us that a woman of the 617th, noted above, was awarded a Silver Star for her valour. The first Silver Star given to a female soldier, ever.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:26 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Will somebody please punch Markos Moulitsas 'Kos' Zunigas in the mouth? I'm not kidding (although I may be speaking in haste and out of anger). Some remarks are so disgusting that they are fighting words. Kos hides behind the fact that he was in the military as if it gives him license to level any criticism he wishes on the armed services of the United States. Via my blogfather Charles Johnson over at LGF this from Markos Moulitsas Zunigas who has clearly gone beyond the pale:

The torture that was so bad under Saddam, is equally bad under U.S. command. And Dick Durbin had the balls to say it so on the Senate floor.

Almost all of the accusations of 'torture' are NOT REAL TORTURE. Instead, they are minor instances of harsh treatment--the kind of treatment you probably wouldn't want to be subjected to--but they aren't TORTURE.

There are some instances of abuse and perhaps even the occasional act of real torture, these, of course should be investigated. But to say that the occasional abuse is somehow equal to the institutionalized and routine torture of the Saddam Hussein regime is disgusting, immoral, and anti-American.

If even the worse accusations turn out to be true, which I do not believe for an instance they will be, they would be nothing compared to what Saddam Hussein routinely did and on hundreds of thousands of victims.

You, Kos, are a certifiable idiot whose blind partisanship is disgusting and unethical.

Warning: Graphic images follow.
more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:50 AM | Comments (199) | Add Comment
Post contains 691 words, total size 7 kb.

1 It reminds me of the old Liberal slogan: Feed the terrorists, Starve the incapacitated.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 12:16 PM (8e/V4)

2 There is a real movement afoot to change the meaning of the word torture. We cannot allow it to happen, as it will end up hurting those poor souls in the world who actually do endure it. There is real torture going on in Cuba, but it is not occuring on US owned soil.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 16, 2005 12:19 PM (jPCiN)

3 Neither Kos nor Durbin give two shits in a flying rats ass about any of the Gitmo detainees. It's all about partisan politics, which makes it even more shameful than if they did believe what they're saying. The people of Illinois should seek to recall Durbin.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 16, 2005 12:21 PM (RHG+K)

4 Libs will just tell you that torture is part of their culture so, it is okay if they do it to eachother. What I don't understand is how libs can call stacking Iraqis Torture. Loonie liberals is just be plain stupid

Posted by: ob snooks at June 16, 2005 12:47 PM (yBHNA)

5 I think I will smack the piss out of a hippy today on the way home. Maybe I will key a Hybrid car too.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 16, 2005 12:49 PM (yBHNA)

6 Yep, this is the party that wants to lure us to their side. They do it through Howard Dean's insults, "Dick" Durbin's moral equivalencies, backing AI's comments, re-electing Boxer, Pelosi and Byrd for the sole purpose of their obstructionism, standing up for Ward Churchill, demeaning the intent and purpose of the Minutemen, etc. Did I miss anything?

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 01:16 PM (fl6E1)

7 They're going to keep on until they push someone to start doing something about their treason.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 01:21 PM (0yYS2)

8 You all have missed the point! Kos is so right. I mean, don't you see the similarities? I will list them, just for your eduction: Saddam used Abu Ghraib, and so do we! Saddam imprisoned people, and so do we! Saddam's guards has guns sometimes, and so do ours! Saddam jailed many Muslims, and so do we! Saddam killed a multitude of people in custody, and so... err, scratch that one. Saddam had a mustache, and so do some of the people in our government! Saddam's prisoners didn't like the fact that they were in prison, and neither do ours! I just don't see how people can be so blind... duh!

Posted by: Wine-aholic at June 16, 2005 01:38 PM (Wsn+K)

9 They're going to keep on until they push someone to start doing something about their treason. Tomorrow wouldn't be soon enough.

Posted by: Misha I at June 16, 2005 01:41 PM (t4bIp)

10 The treatment of these terrorists is outrageous, why this very week I heard they were using 'titty twisters' and 'chinese rope burns' on these poor terrorists, I certainly hope we can get these concentration camps closed down before they allow the use of 'wet willies'

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 01:42 PM (fsJ2z)

11 Partisanship over Principle. Now if i were to post those pics at the liberal message board I attend, they'd tell me that I was being harsh. Because they can't handle the truth. Only their truth. Unbelievable. ps. your url form still wont take my homestead address, says its questionable. whats up with that?

Posted by: jm at June 16, 2005 01:46 PM (PfEpD)

12 jm, Sorry, don't know what the problem is....

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 16, 2005 01:50 PM (JQjhA)

13 Oh, and if you haven't clicked on that last link at the bottom of the post, I'd highly recommend it.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 16, 2005 02:00 PM (JQjhA)

14 It's a bird! it's a plane! No, it's... The Liberal Avenger! Able to look bring chuckles to everyone everyone for spouting cliche-ridden nonsense! How much money does the Democratic Party pay you, Junior?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 02:14 PM (x+5JB)

15 Markos Moulitsas 'Kos' Zunigas served in the US military? I never would have guessed that in a million years. Rusty: Do you have a link or prior post?

Posted by: Bob at June 16, 2005 02:20 PM (s6nMp)

16 No, but I saw him interviewed on C-SPAN awhile back. He uses it to level the accusation of 'chickenhawk' on all who support the war but who have not been in the military.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 16, 2005 02:23 PM (JQjhA)

17 Rusty, next to each one of those photos, put up that photo of Private Englund holding the leash of the prisoner. And ask, "which picture would you rather be in?"

Posted by: rbj at June 16, 2005 02:28 PM (uW2T+)

18 "No, but I saw him interviewed on C-SPAN awhile back. He uses it to level the accusation of 'chickenhawk' on all who support the war but who have not been in the military." Forgot the exact phrase for this logical fallacy. It's like saying you can't support a concept without experiencing it firsthand. Thus, a person could never support care for the elderly unless he or she were 65.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 02:35 PM (x+5JB)

19 Rusty, I did a post on this issue but your trackbacks aren't working. The post is here: http://hyscience.typepad.com/hyscience/2005/06/daily_kos_final.html

Posted by: Richard at June 16, 2005 02:39 PM (xFeJi)

20 Torture is Torture Above you said that some torture took place at AG. It doesn't make any difference who the better torturer is. Torture is Torture and Torture should not be allowed.

Posted by: MJM at June 16, 2005 02:42 PM (gUdrU)

21 What we did in AG, was that not torture? When someone mutilates themselves over the course of an "interigation" due to the environment of the "interigation" is that not torture? Thanks to our own HISTORY of torture, we now have to face the fact that unless we are 100% open and transparent with our prisoners we WILL face criticisms justified or not that will be impossible to dissaude with "Trust us" Remember...the day AG happened changed everything...blow it off as "frat-like" pranks...but some of them were Saddam worthy.

Posted by: Rob at June 16, 2005 02:43 PM (/9rfp)

22 They're going to keep on until they push someone to start doing something about their treason. Tomorrow wouldn't be soon enough. Posted by: Misha I at June 16, 2005 01:41 PM It's treasonous to object to the government using my tax dollars for acts that will make my family less safe? Gosh, that's funny, and here I thought we had freedom of speech in this country. I didn't realize this was already a conservative dictatorship. Someone's going to start doing something about our treason? Ohmigosh! This can only mean the 101st Fighting Keyboarders are going to have to blog about this the rest of the day! With no supper! Oh the humanity!

Posted by: Gramma Millie at June 16, 2005 02:46 PM (eY2Ws)

23 This sounds a lot like the "dialogue" I had to endure circa 1970. Kos was over the top, terrible, but there are real, substantive questions about our treatment of prisoners. Abu Ghraib happened. There are active investigations of prisoner deaths, not just one, I seem to recall 20 or so. Now maybe you feel that all these prisoners deserve whatever they get. You are entitled to your opinion, and although I disagree I'm not interested in doing you bodily harm. The substance here is the question of how we should treat these prisoners. Why isn't that discussed, as opposed to really useless rhetoric?

Posted by: SLE at June 16, 2005 02:49 PM (hsrIx)

24 Conservative dictatorship? Wow - Gramma, I'm guessin' you haven't been to Canada lately to get your pills.

Posted by: Editor at June 16, 2005 02:50 PM (adpJH)

25 This must not be allowed to stand. Either the Democrats hold these clowns responsible or we hang it around their collective necks and make them the party of UBL. This is the most disgusted I have been with the Democrats - they are a disgrace.

Posted by: Kate at June 16, 2005 02:51 PM (46XGB)

26 The looney avenger wrote: "It is sick how you neocon fascists try to dodge the responsibility of Abu Ghraib and the US neoimperialistic and corporate abuse of democracy and social justice." You forgot to add "running dog capitalists". Glorious Leader™ says 10 point deduction. "how much does Jawa get paid by PNAC and the GOP to post this?" Glorious Leader™ says 5 point deduction for failure to capitalise. (Ironic, huh?) "where does his money come from?" Duh, evil capitalists, of course. Glorious Leader™ says 10 point deduction foir missing the obvious. "You just a front for a crypto-fascist neoconservative cabal and an an oil war masquerading as an endless crusade against "terrorism."" Glorious Leader™ says 5 point deduction for dropping a word from the Evil White Oppressor® language. Nice scare quotes though, but it won't do you any good. "We need to stop the hate and regulate these "warbloggers" - overthrow Bushco now!" Glorious Leader™ says 20 point deduction for being soft. Instead of "regulate" you should have written "reeducate". Also, you made no mention of the plight of the oppressed gay transgendered indigenous ethnic minority dolphins or their struggle against the Evil White Oppressor®. Your grade is a disloyal and counterrevolutionary 50 out of a possible 100. Disgraceful. You are almost a running-dog capitalist with such a performance! I bet you even have thought about getting a job! you disloyal wretch! If you wish, you may appeal your grade to the Peoples'Glorious Struggle For Truth®. Your appeal must be worded only in adjectives, half of which must be directly taken from The Little Red Book© or the Communist Manifesto©. It must be written in your own blood, in triplicate. It won't help you though, we know what you've been up to. You may not use the ACLU to help file your appeal, and we will know if you do. If you do not wish to appeal, you may simply sign a confession to being disloyal to the Party™, and report for Reeducation™, which you will do anyway before it's over. Oh yes you will. Or you can just save us the paperwork and play Russian Roulette with a Party™ issued Makarov 9mm automatic pistol.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 02:52 PM (0yYS2)

27 Why doesnt someone steal this jack asses identity: http://www.vialls.com/iraq/traitors.html

Posted by: Salamander at June 16, 2005 02:56 PM (V40IZ)

28 For the record, I didn't post that comment above purportedly from me. It was Basil from Basil's blog.

Posted by: The Liberal Avenger at June 16, 2005 02:56 PM (kgBuS)

29 Kate, your threat is hollow. Most Democrats expect to labelled traitors nowadays. You just haven't caught up to current rhetoric. I suggest that the next step would be to ban the party as traitorous. Haven't heard that one yet, but I expect someone will use it sooner or later.

Posted by: SLE at June 16, 2005 02:57 PM (hsrIx)

30 Kos served in the Army as an artilleryman *during the run up to Desert Storm*. He signed up out of high school. His unit was preparing to be deployed, but then the Bush41 showed some restraint and didn't move the Coalition Forces into Baghdad. As to his patriotism and such, Kos stated during an interview with a Boston University publication in 2003 that his near-deployment experience caused him to rethink the nature of his participation in the US Army (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it) and, besides, that he'd gotten the education benefits that he originally enlisted for anyway, so he got out. All of which is fine, so far as it goes. My reaction, as a former enlisted man (4 years, 2 tours in Korea, mid-80s) is that Kos is rather an idiot for bringing up his military service. Color me skeptical, Kos was a gunner, a 13-series guy, one who fired guns-that-go-BOOM!!!, and he somehow never quite figured out that the point of his training was to prepare him and his buddies to point that big piece hollowed out metal towards an enemy target. So, for all his post-military education, his accomplishments as a musician, and the fact that Kos, per another interview, took a tango class in college to meet women I don't know that he's all that bright. But he did serve. In the Army. As for my own military background, since this is the touchstone that Kos and former Delta Force Operative James Wolcott use in their 'chickenhawk' arguments, I was a Korean cryptologic translator in the mid-80s - soon after I got my training orders I figured out that somehow I would end up in Korea. If Rusty needs one, I can email him a 'Serviceman-by-Proxy' which will grant him plenipotentiary powers to call Kos an idiot with the full blessing from a guy who served for a full year longer. I even figured out which Korea I'd be stationed in.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at June 16, 2005 02:57 PM (F8Ixb)

31 Ok, let's try this: Take a huge step back, forget about politics. breath out. And ask yourself: Is Torture ok? If you say 'yes', please go ahead abd follow IM's advice: play Russian Roulette with a Party™ issued Makarov 9mm automatic pistol.

Posted by: MJM at June 16, 2005 02:58 PM (gUdrU)

32 Anyone who has their air condition on right now is torturing everyone in the building. Anyone listening to Top 40 is doing the same. Anyone who is a woman and not acting submissive is torturing the men in the room (as per the Koran). SHAME! SHAME!

Posted by: KILLYOURSELVES at June 16, 2005 03:04 PM (Gi7oA)

33 The difference is that Saddam is depraved, and a moral abomination, and we are a democratic example for the world to follow. Throwing this 'kos' guy aside, the US should not stand for the abuse of prisoners in our custody. Another thing: the real perpetrators of 'moral equivalence' here are those suggesting that this is okay because US torture is not as bad as Baathist torture. Bottom line: Saddam and his Baathist government tortured people and put down insurections brutally, sometimes using chemical weapons. Some US troops have abused prisoners. Some US troops, 'private contractors', and intelligence agents have tortured prisoners (sometimes to death). The first is awful, the second is awful, and the third is awful. All need to stop. How you 'rate' them is up to you.

Posted by: A.M. at June 16, 2005 03:10 PM (Du4Of)

34 Liberal Avenger, trying to weasel out of what he previously posted, wrote" "For the record, I didn't post that comment above purportedly from me. It was Basil from Basil's blog." Tsk, tsk, tsk, comrade. We have your confession, don't try to blame another! You are not sufficiently loyal to the party and must be purged.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 03:16 PM (0yYS2)

35 Rusty: Good fisk. The use of the "T-word" in reference to US practice at X-Ray amounts to the hystericism of wimps. I have a friend who was taken by US Military Intelligence and locked inside a 2x2x3 foot box for ten hours. While one might tend to regard such an experience as "torturous" (and it has been fatal on occasion) it was in fact only inflicted on volunteers. It was part of his training. Imagine being confined in the fetal position inside a dark and airless box for ten hours! I don't think there's anything we do to "enemy combatants" that's, frankly, half as bad. Which, by the way, suggests a strategy for dealing with interrogations that bypasses all of the hysterical nonsense, and gets right to the heart of the matter. The standard is simple. We are empowered to do anything to a detainee that an uncoerced member of our own services will volunteer to undergo. That should put the weakling hystericism of people like Kos right out the door. And I can't think of any other straightforward standard that would settle the matter so completely. More later...

Posted by: Demosophist at June 16, 2005 03:20 PM (FVRfJ)

36 MJM, your question is appropriate. But the problem is, many of the Bush Administration's most outspoken supporters will either refuse to provide a simple answer to a simple question. Or, they will flip-flop -- one day they will pound the table and loudly proclaim "well this isn't torture! we just don't engage in that sort of activity," and the next day they will pound the table and loudly proclaim, "torture? damn straight! and we'll do it again and again and again if it keeps us safe". During the Presidential campaign last year, flip-flopping was seen as a bad thing by Bush supporters. But the times, they have a changed. (How convenient.)

Posted by: Gramma Millie at June 16, 2005 03:20 PM (eY2Ws)

37 The "BUT IT WAS STILL WRONG, SO IT WAS THE AME" should try to answer this: Is 5 less than 10? 200 less than 10,000? Or are they the same?

Posted by: TPS Reporter at June 16, 2005 03:24 PM (Gi7oA)

38 MSM, in a pathetic attempt to avoid addressing the truth, wrote: "Torture is Torture Above you said that some torture took place at AG. It doesn't make any difference who the better torturer is. Torture is Torture and Torture should not be allowed." Of course, it's not worth mentioning when it's done by anyone other than Americans. Torture is fine in Cuba, North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq under Saddam, etc., but if an American discomfits a terrorist in any way, it's heinous and brutal. ...and in another post: "Ok, let's try this: Take a huge step back, forget about politics. breath out. And ask yourself: Is Torture ok? If you say 'yes', please go ahead abd follow IM's advice: play Russian Roulette with a Party™ issued Makarov 9mm automatic pistol." In which case, I advise all liberals to kill themselves. Now. Liberals have always condoned torture by Communist and Islamic regimes by either excusing it or ignoring it. You liberals are all monumental;y treasonous pieces of shit and should all be purged in the style of your beloved "Uncle Joe" Stalin. A good liberal is a dead liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 03:25 PM (0yYS2)

39 "I think I will smack the piss out of a hippy today on the way home. Maybe I will key a Hybrid car too." Filthy Allah: I don't care what you do to hippies, commies, kosacks and other members of the deranged left. But if you key MY Hybrid (the one with the USAF sticker and Blue Service Star decals) I'll put a big hole in you with my Python and smack the piss out of your lifeless body! Oh, and I hope Durbin finds himself in a real gulag in his next life.

Posted by: Don Miguel at June 16, 2005 03:26 PM (+KixN)

40 Oh Jeeze - Assless Chaps gave you a link and didn't even have the courtesy to trackback? Not that there's anything wrong with that *cough**cough*.

Posted by: Editor at June 16, 2005 03:29 PM (adpJH)

41 Let me remind liberal readers that almost nothing that is being claimed as 'torture' by the Center for Constitutional Rights and other organizations is actually torture. It may be 'like' torture or might be an 'abuse', but it certainly isn't torture.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 16, 2005 03:30 PM (JQjhA)

42 So kos was in the Army eh? He volunteered to join, almost got deployed, and suddenly became a pacifist. There is a word for that; it's coward. I went to Desert Storm, and I saw quite a few guys crying about "I didn't sign up to go to war" crap. What did they join for? I'll tell you, they joined because they wanted to get the benefits, but without having to do more than absolutely necessary to earn them. Kos is a gutless, spineless, simpering coward, and he hates the military because he hates himself for being too chickenshit to do what real soldiers do. If he ever grows some balls, he should have the decency to stick a gun in his mouth, though at the rate he's going, somebody else will probably do it for him. Not soon enough either.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 03:31 PM (0yYS2)

43 These Libs whining about "torture" are just trying to legislate morality. I hate when Libs do that.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 03:35 PM (8e/V4)

44 Rusty: semantics don't help if people in our custody died due to mistreatment. "Abused to death"?

Posted by: SLE at June 16, 2005 03:40 PM (hsrIx)

45 Excellent site here. I especially enjoy the fact that commenters here to stick to facts and issues without resorting to openly fantasizing about liberals being harmed, tortured or killed.

Posted by: Gramma Millie at June 16, 2005 03:43 PM (eY2Ws)

46 >>>"Or, they will flip-flop -- one day they will pound the table and loudly proclaim "well this isn't torture! we just don't engage in that sort of activity," and the next day they will pound the table and loudly proclaim, "torture? damn straight! and we'll do it again and again and again if it keeps us safe". Gramma, MJM, I'm a conservative that's ok with torture, AND who does not think we've used torture at Gitmo or Abu Graib. Was that too complicated for you? or was I "flopping"?

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 03:43 PM (8e/V4)

47 BumperStickerist: 98G? I was a 98G, A/102ndMI 88-90, myself.

Posted by: Russ at June 16, 2005 03:46 PM (zShs1)

48 Libs just make shit up and throw it against the wall and the commie press just licks it all up

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 16, 2005 03:54 PM (yBHNA)

49 Carlos, thank you for responding. If you can stick to that position for at least a few days, we'll document you as Conservative Non Flipper #1.

Posted by: Gramma Millie at June 16, 2005 03:56 PM (eY2Ws)

50 >>>"Carlos, thank you for responding. If you can stick to that position for at least a few days, we'll document you as Conservative Non Flipper #1" Gramma, no problem, I'm happy to oblige. In a few days when you get around to documenting it, perhaps you can show me all those other conservatives that you've documented as "flip-floppers"? Even a single solitary name will do. Thanks.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 04:04 PM (8e/V4)

51 Very interesting postings, by very interesting people. I am not one of those who believes that people who have not been there have no right to speak on the subject. I firmly support, and serve at the blessing of the very rights that I have been born with in my beloved Land. I am not going to try and state all the Iraqi people whom have met us with open arms, thanked us for what we have done and continue to do so in their own beloved land; nor am I going to waste my breath describing the Incredible men that have lost their very lives protecting the innocent-and hesitating to protect themselves when confronted with combat that could Kill Innocents. those men that I have known, and continue to serve with, are too great of Heroes subject their stories to a forum were any implicite hate for what they did and do permeates. However, I would just like to state for the record: as I prepare for the land of the Euphraties once again-- Excepting the Esprit de Corps, and fighting spirit of the men that I serve with...of whom the hardcharging, Can do, Honor Courage and Committment is the baptismal water they are ordained in-- Not one MARINE has, or ever will, be taken PRISONER by these Enemy in Iraq (or the Afganistan). WHY? We know that not a one of us would ever be granted QUARTER, as we do for them. WE would be tortured and Killed, BEHEADED and GUTTED on video, for the world to forget even more quickly than they do those who already have been. Consciousness and bare hands would keep me in the fight, while when they throw down their arms, they get Air-Conditioned Meals of the kind not found in an MRE I've choked down. For that, please do not forsake those that believe in exactly why they have volunteered, to give their life for those to always continue to have the right live and speak as freely as we do now. remember 9/11. I was there. and Loved and Lost.

Posted by: USMarine at June 16, 2005 04:05 PM (FzIQt)

52 Carlos, could you elaborate on your "I'm a conservative who's OK with torture" statement? Are you OK with torture generally? Or is your position maybe more along the lines of, it's OK for the Bush Administration to use torture in the GWOT? And if it's closer to the latter, are there any limits to your position -- i.e., in terms of who we torture and how we torture them? FWIW, these are sincere questions, I'm just trying to understand your position. Thank you.

Posted by: Gramma Millie at June 16, 2005 04:25 PM (eY2Ws)

53 I suppose it must be mentioned again to some here that in the US, when actual cases of abuse and/or torture are proven, we prosecute. In Saddam land, you might get promoted, or at least not tortured yourself, maybe.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 16, 2005 04:34 PM (lVjfM)

54 Correct 98G, but in Air Force terms at the time I was a 208x4G. I was at Skivvy Nine from 84-86 ... we probably worked the same communications of interest. Language training at the Presidio of Monterey, back when they still had beer machines in the dorm. View of the Bay, Cannery Row and the Dream Theater right down the hill ... man, it was torture, using the current working definition of torture favored by Kos and his ilk. Yes, I said ilk.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at June 16, 2005 04:36 PM (u6K4W)

55 It reminds me of the old Liberal slogan: Feed the terrorists, Starve the incapacitated. Carlos, I already have that covered, but thanks for mentioning it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 16, 2005 04:38 PM (CO4eV)

56 Covered here, that is: http://www.cafepress.com/confederateyank.19671982

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 16, 2005 04:40 PM (CO4eV)

57 Gramma, I'm in favor of doing what is necessary and effective to extract information that we have reason to believe will actually save American lives. That does not mean I'm in favor of torturing, or even humilating people, just for kicks, as appears to have happenned in Abu Graib-- but neither am I all broken up about it cause it couldn't happen to better people.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 04:58 PM (8e/V4)

58 Confederate, that slogan is apparently making its way around the web. I saw it at LGF.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 05:00 PM (8e/V4)

59 The US sets the standard for human rights, worldwide. Washington itself has reiterated that the US is the leader in this regard. These folks are being treated no different than Americans would like to see their own sons and daughters treated when they are captured by foreign fighters.

Posted by: Thoughful at June 16, 2005 05:44 PM (BFEfg)

60 Gramma, can I put a (admittedly rather silly) hypothetical to you. Say you had proof positive of a nuclear weapon placed in a unknown but heavily populated city on a 24 hour countdown and you actually had in custody the terrorist who had planted the bomb, now you know the man had an absolute urine phobia, so would you allow your interrogators to urinate on the man if you knew this was the only possible way of obtaining the whereabouts of the bomb? This is obviously a very unlikely scenario i.e the choice of urinating on the man or sacrificing a million or so innocents, but the simple fact is that a *similar* scenario isn't. There may well come a day when someone with just your ideals is faced with such a choice. I'd assume your answer to the question would be no, but if it isn't, what lengths would you go to to extract the information?

Posted by: John at June 16, 2005 06:01 PM (I3B5B)

61 BumperStickerist, Yep, those were definitely the days. Monterey was sheer hell on Earth. Especially having to look at all those civilian women.

Posted by: Russ at June 16, 2005 06:03 PM (zShs1)

62 Butch, Dammit.... I had a very long answer, and it got swallowed. Crap.

Posted by: Russ at June 16, 2005 06:07 PM (zShs1)

63 [Wow! Google Desktop Search is *definitely* my friend - it found my comment in my browser cache. Good thing I hit the Preview button before my comment disappeared into the ether. Good thing I thought to try GDS....] Humane and just treatment, indeed. The "just" part of that means we can and *should* treat criminals as criminals... and if the "illegal" in "illegal combatant" means anything, it means that they are war criminals. Guess what's included in the range of punishments for war crimes? Hermann Goering wasn't given a sentence of 20-to-life, y'know. What makes a legal combatant? The rules I see most often (from Article 4) are a) being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, b) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, c) carrying arms openly, and d) conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. That's an "AND" proposition, not an "OR." All four criteria have to be met. AFAIK, only a) is routinely the case with the current enemy. Now, I'm not saying that illegals should be executed at the point of capture. I *am* saying that if captured, there ought not to be days, weeks and months between capture and execution. Prisoners, both legal and illegal combatants, are as a matter of course secured and moved to a central location of some sort while in the field, before being sent off a longer distance, as is the case now, to a prison camp of one sort or another. This is going to sound harsh to a lot of folks, but I'm inclined to think that a standing General Court ought to exist at the collection point, that illegals brought in for processing should be liable to trial on the spot, with the troops who did the capturing present as witnesses at the trials. Mind you, I'm not terribly thrilled by the idea, but if the laws of war are to mean anything, then the first thing that has to be done is to punish those who break those laws. That doesn't mean executing everyone - but it sure as hell means that illegal combatants should know that they are subject to that punishment if captured. As Bill Whittle noted in "Sanctuary," http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html (the first three sections), those who break the rules endanger not only our own soldiers, but the truly innocent civilians. OK, I've gone on long enough.

Posted by: Russ at June 16, 2005 06:11 PM (zShs1)

64 Double-crap... I made the previous comment on the wrong thread.

Posted by: Russ at June 16, 2005 06:27 PM (zShs1)

65 Forgot the exact phrase for this logical fallacy. It's like saying you can't support a concept without experiencing it firsthand. Thus, a person could never support care for the elderly unless he or she were 65. Or that you can't be anti-crime without having been a police officer or have a right to voice any concern about fires without serving as a firefighter. Gitmo is not Dachau, it isn't even Manzanar. It's more like Rikers Island. Abu Ghairb... much of the stuff that happened at Abu Gharib, and by people who were prison guards in their civilian life. What Durbin and the rest need to consider is what's happening in American prisons, recognize any similarities to Abu Gharib and Gitmo(especially when they clamor for Ken Lay to experience prison rape for Enron's shenanigans) and do something about this problem or quit acting like it's the worst crisis in the world except if it happens to our own.

Posted by: h0mi at June 16, 2005 07:38 PM (zpJBl)

66 MJM sez "Torture is Torture" Ok...let's go with this a bit. "R*ape is R*ape", correct? And no decent person would advocate or apologize for "r*ape" right? Now, the question then becomes, "what is r*ape?" What? You think you know what r*ape is? Au contraire! While YOU may think r*ape is forceable/unconsented sexual intercourse that is only ONE aspect of r*ape. If a female gets "caught up in the moment", has sex and wakes up the next morning with regrets.. that's r*ape Been sexually harrassed? Had to listen to a dirty joke against your will? Feel you were pressured to engage in a little grabass at a party and are now embarrassed? Tantamount to r*ape and if you have ANY QUALMS about the definition then, by golly, you are SUPPORTING R*APE and are NO DIFFERENT than Ted Bundy! Gender-feminists have engaged in this politicization of semantics for years. Stake out the verbal turf, make it your own, stretch the definition all out of proportion then demonize anyone that hesitates to kiss your boots with the worst aspect of the word. Regret = r*ape Dirty jokes = sexual harrasment al Qaeda terrorists = POWs or civilians as defined by the Geneva Convention sleep deprivation/Christine Aguilera music/no food for 18 hrs = TORTURE What a bunch of whiney-assed quisling prom-queens! they won't like us..whaaa NO WONDER Osama boasted he would win because Americans have no belief in their own values. You idiots are perfect dhimmi material and I am ASHAMED to call you fellow citizens.

Posted by: Darleen at June 16, 2005 08:05 PM (FgfaV)

67 I envy the trust of big government exhibited by some of the posters here. It must be comforting. Imagine if Hitlery Clintoon, with the help of the MSM, becomes president. Would you trust her with the electrodes and mentsrual blood. I can just see the homosexual orgies. To me nothing is more scary than big government conservatives. You could call them social conservatives or theocrats or fascists. The Union is in danger from within. War is coming to our shores. Us liberals will wear blue like the sky and water. You conservatives will wear red,like the blood of christ when he faced the executioner. When the war is over we'll use Gitmo for the war profiteers and traitors in our government. Instead of putting Reagan on Rushmore, we'll rename Gitmo "The Reagan Rape Rooms" as a reminder to the nation builders and arms merchants that the meek will indeed inherit the earth. It's just the waiting right now.

Posted by: tinkletoes at June 16, 2005 08:47 PM (68M32)

68 If you get me to him I will either beat him to a pulp or die in the attempt. An old exJarhead

Posted by: Rod Stanton at June 16, 2005 09:02 PM (5XW4C)

69 tinkletoes, put down the joint.

Posted by: SPQR at June 16, 2005 09:35 PM (xauGB)

70 for the love of God, mates -- I drifted over here to see what goes on in the minds of the conservative right these days, and I have to say -- IT AIN'T MUCH!!! 30+ prisoners have been TORTURED TO DEATH by US soldiers. An estimated 20 of these did not even belong in the prison -- were picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. USA is not an isolated nation -- this is the reality we have to live with, that the rest of the world now regards us as a regime that uses torture. Happy with that? The conservative right is looking more Hitlerian every day.

Posted by: astonished at June 16, 2005 09:50 PM (9mP8a)

71 Speechless. Seriously. Where are the Scoop Jacksons of the Democratic Party?

Posted by: Will Franklin at June 16, 2005 10:04 PM (Wnw6K)

72 >>>"The conservative right is looking more Hitlerian every day." Leftard, are you saying there's something wrong with being hitlerian? I happen to like it. Run along now back to your loony bin and report what you saw here.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 10:09 PM (8e/V4)

73 astonished: Please provide a source for your claim that 30+ prisoners have been tortured to death by US soldiers. And for the estimate that 20 of them did not belong in the prison, along with the criteria used to determine whether they were "in the wrong place at the wrong time" or were legitimately imprisoned. Thank you.

Posted by: Morgan at June 16, 2005 10:10 PM (eNuaW)

74 Also, unless you can produce evidence that torture is sanctioned by the US government (as opposed to, say, investigated when it is alleged and prosecuted when it is proved), I can only conclude that the absence of evidence is enough for you and "the rest of the world" to regard us "as a regime that uses torture". In which case it would make no sense to care what you and the rest of the world think at all, as your beliefs would be paranoid fantasies.

Posted by: Morgan at June 16, 2005 10:30 PM (eNuaW)

75 I tried to trackback to this post and was unsuccessful. Links related to my post below can be found on my site www.lumponablog.com. This post could also be titled: On the Equivalency of Rap Music and Beheadings Next time you hear Dick Durban and other democrats whine about the conditions at Guantanamo, remind them that this is an island paradise compared with places of real torture. Daily Kos has joined the madness and decided to compare US torture tactics to those of Saddam Hussein. If only it were true. If you have the stomach for it, you can see the beheading videos and other acts of violence by the terrorists in Iraq at Young Nationalist. WARNING: These videos are extremely graphic and not easy to watch. Make your decision to view them carefully. After watching these, any time you hear a Dick Durban or Daily Kos dare open their mouth and complain about our treatment of captured terrorists you will know the danger of liberalism in your bones. You will remember how the New York Times and other liberal media inundated us with images of Abu Gharib and ignored the horrors in these videos. You will also remember that many liberal media outlets still insist on calling the men who commit the atrocities in these videos and images insurgents.

Posted by: Lumpy at June 16, 2005 11:08 PM (zzzPq)

76 Look, go read the post at Kos before you flame off. He is not saying that torture under the US is as bad as under Saddam. It's not, and NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. What he was saying is that torture is equally wrong, no matter who is doing it. People on both sides have to learn to read things in context before spouting off. No lefties love Saddam or his torture chambers. We just do not want to see that sort of thing happen under our watch either, because, even if it's not as extreme as the horrible pictures above, torture is just plain wrong. I would assume that most reasonable people on the right would also agree that it's not ok for us to torture people. Am I wrong?

Posted by: sigh at June 16, 2005 11:08 PM (/Enlv)

77 Folks, There is no equivalency between the state policy of the use of torture (i.e. death, dismemberment, scarring) in Saddam's Iraq (or for that matter, in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.) and the actions of a few soldiers on the night shift at AG. That's why we have laws and actually enforce them to deal with the bad apples. There is no neocon conspiracy, (sorry to disabuse the notion for the lefty loonies), there is no policy of true torture - no nada. The bankrupt concept of leftists to try to make the arguement that there is a US policy to torture is just wrong. Actually, leftists should know torture when they see it since most of the truly murderous regimes in the past 100 years have been leftist, socialist, national socialist, or communist. I also find it entertaining that the left continues to move the goal-posts when it comes to US behavior - the US military is by far the most humane, most discrete, most law abiding, and most discriminating war machine ever fielded, period. I would never support the policy of real torture - but if a hard interrogation is what is necessary, then so be it.

Posted by: WS at June 16, 2005 11:16 PM (KCsjG)

78 >>>"What he was saying is that torture is equally wrong, no matter who is doing it." sigh, Sigh.....no, it's not. You Lefties are so black and white-- no nuance whatsoever. If we torture a terrorist to gain intelligence that saves lives it not "the same" as Saddam torturing innocent civilians to tyrranize them and prop up his kleptocracy. Not that we're torturing anybody. You have no evidence that we are (and no, abuse is NOT torture).

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 11:19 PM (8e/V4)

79 sigh: Torture is not "equally wrong" if the definition of torture has been modified so that in the one case it refers to dripping acid on someone and in the other it refers to exposing them to Christina Aguilera. Toture is also not "equally wrong" if in one case it is done for the sheer sadistic pleasure of watching ones' political enemies die in horrible pain and in the other case it is done to obtain information that will save innocent peoples' lives.

Posted by: Morgan at June 16, 2005 11:20 PM (eNuaW)

80 Absolutely. Anybody who tries to compare GTMO and Abu Ghraib under U.S. control to Abu Ghraib under Saddam Hussein is not rational, and may be a f*cking moron. If anyone makes such a comparison to my face, I'll say, "You are a f*cking moron." I purchased "Voices of Iraq," a documentary filmed in Iraq last year. An Iraqi man is asked what he thinks about U.S. abuses at Abu Ghraib, and he laughs, pulls up his shirt to reveal healed bullet wounds, and says that he was shot at Abu Ghraib under Saddam Hussein. It's our job to stop the liberals in 2006 and 2008. I'm not overly conservative, and I'm no Republican, but I'll side with anyone to keep these idiots away from power.

Posted by: Brian Blazevic at June 16, 2005 11:20 PM (b2Y3g)

81 "I would never support the policy of real torture - but if a hard interrogation is what is necessary, then so be it." Ok, but don't you think we ought to be really crystal clear about what the distinctions are, rather than leaving that to the judgement of individuals? There's a real slippery slope there: if one punch is ok, why not two, and so on so forth. When does "hard interrogation" become torture? Well, one answer is that we have international guidelines that make that distinction, and we wouldn't be having this argument if we agreed to adhere to those guidelines with all of our prisoners. Even if you don't like the Geneva Conventions, you still need to have a crystal clear and open policy about what does and does not constitute torture. Part of being the "good guys" means never sinking to the "bad guys" level.

Posted by: sigh at June 16, 2005 11:30 PM (/Enlv)

82 sigh, out of uniform POWs are not protected under the Geneva Conventions, and if we treat them humanely it's because that's the kind of people we are-- not because we're obligated to by treaty. But we're not interested in your clumsy moral equivalencies. Torture and abuse are not the same thing. Neither is torture for the purposes of saving lives the same as torture for the purposes of propping up a tyrranical dictatorship, i.e., your "gulags". You Kos types only show how moronic you are with your stupid moral equivalencies that almost never fit. You are to blame for an entire movement of anti-Libs who call themselves South Park conservatives, and that should tell you something.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 11:39 PM (8e/V4)

83 The guidelines themselves are vague, sigh. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Article 1 For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. So, what is severe pain or suffering? Confinement to a hot room? A cold room? Poking in the chest with a finger? Light pushing? Sleep deprivation? Flashing lights? Loud music? Those are tactics that were approved by the US government. Someone asked, "can we do this?" and was told "yes". None of these comes close to the line, as far as I am concerned. Punching is not allowed as far as I know, and a number of invstigations into allegations of assault are underway. In addition, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to illegal combatants.

Posted by: Morgan at June 16, 2005 11:44 PM (eNuaW)

84 Morgan: "exposing them to Christina Aguilera": If that's all that was going on in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and it's misleading to choose that part of Durbin's statement as an example. Go back and re-read his comments and focus instead on the sitting in urine and excrement part. Forget about the comparison to Saddam, because that just clouds the issue. The question really is: Is it ok for us to be holding prisoners in these conditions? Doesn't that sound more to you like the work of a repressive and cruel government? Unless you are one of those people who thinks that criminals lose all their rights (which is not what our justice system is founded on), then it should make you at least a little uncomfortable. "done to obtain information that will save innocent peoples' lives": Can you or anyone else prove that the information we've extracted under these methods has in fact made us safer? I don't think so. I'll grant you that intent makes some difference, but the truth is that we have no idea what's going on down there or whether the ends in anyway justify the means. Another reasonable question might be whether all the detainees at Gitmo are bonafide, in-the-know terrorists with valuable information to be extracted. Again, hard to say, but I'm going to guess no.

Posted by: sigh at June 16, 2005 11:47 PM (/Enlv)

85 Durbin's "sitting in excrement" statement comes (I think) from a report by an FBI agent assigned to Gitmo. An odd report, actually. The agent stated in the report that "a couple" times, he/she entered interrogation rooms at Gitmo, and saw detainees chained to the floor in a fetal position (his/her writing is poor - it is unclear whether the detainees were chained so that they could not move from a fetal position or were simply restrained from leaving and had laid down, though he/she does note that there was no chair, which would seem to indicate the latter). He/she goes on to state that these detainees had "usually" defecated and/or urinated on themselves, though it does not say whether this was their idea (an attempt to get someone to come close to clean them up?) or not. I believe it was the same agent who stated in a previous section of the report that the only "non-FBI approved tactic" he/she had seen was wrapping a detainee in an Israeli flag. Durbin has exaggerated the report, and you were fooled into thinking that we were holding prisoners in piles and puddles of their own excrement. One other point. These are not criminals. They are illegal combatants engaged in war against our country. Holding them indefinitely is a kindness. They could be shot. As for whether all of those held have valuable information to give, I doubt it. I don't see anything wrong with using all legitimate methods to find out.

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 12:20 AM (eNuaW)

86 One last comment, and then I've got to stop (dam...blog...addiction). Without going through them one by one, let me say that I will concede some of the points that have been made, but dispute others. Let me just say that this comment really cuts to the heart of the matter: "if we treat them humanely it's because that's the kind of people we are". That's really what this is about. Where do you draw the line between acceptable methods and torture (or abuse -- I can't say that I take a great deal of comfort in saying that we don't torture, we abuse), and how does that distinction reflect on "the kind of people we are"? I feel that those kinds of distinctions are really the measures of our greatness as a nation. And any time there is some grey area, I think we ought to take a step back and think about it. Maybe Kos' and Durbin's comments don't read that way to you, but that's what I feel this is actually about. As a final note, I'd like to thank the people who responded respectfully. I don't think this stuff is always black and white, and most of the time when you actually get down to it, there's really some reason why there are two sides to the debate - this stuff is sometimes not so simple. To the people who immediately jumped to insults and generalizations, well, you're the reason political conversation in this country degenerates into simplistic shouting matches. I'm disappointed to say that we've got people like you on our side.

Posted by: sigh at June 17, 2005 12:33 AM (/Enlv)

87 >>are you saying there's something wrong with being >>hitlerian? I happen to like it. Run along now back >>to your loony bin and report what you saw here. >>Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 10:09 PM Carlos, Who lives in the loony bin, me opposing torture or you making fond of nazism?

Posted by: astonished at June 17, 2005 01:40 AM (9mP8a)

88 sigh: I agree that things are not black and white, and that there are some things we should not resort to in order to obtain information. Much of the difference in where people draw the line can be traced to the seriousness with which they treat the threat and how effective they think various methods will be. I think the threat is very serious, and therefore object when people try to draw the line on "acceptable methods" somewhere on the nice side of "yucky" - as though the only legitimate way to obtain information would be to shower detainees with gifts until they loved us so much they would tell us anything. Somehow I suspect that just won't work. To your last comment. If we disagree on the intent of Durbin's and Kos's statements, it may be because, in my view, both Durbin and Kos have a long history of blind partisanship. They don't want to seek or spread the truth - they don't care much for their country, either - they only want to say things that harm their enemies. If that means telling the truth, great. If it means twisting the truth, no problem. If it means lying, well, so be it. They are quite willing to insult and make generalizations to further their partisan agenda. They are very much like those whose behavior you decry. Durbin didn't read the report he did because it showed that detainees were being tortured. It did not. He read it because it was lewd, and graphic, and might cause people to decide on an emotional level, without thinking, "that's horrible, this administration is horrible". And now I also need to unplug from the blogs.

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 01:53 AM (Yci9I)

89 "Kos hides behind the fact that he was in the military as if it gives him license to level any criticism he wishes on the armed services of the United States." You sir are correct. Any American can level any criticism they wish at the armed services of the United States. One doesn't need to have previously served to offer up criticism(or praise). The 1st Amendent gives us that right.

Posted by: puzzled at June 17, 2005 02:44 AM (moq9v)

90 hmmm, Quite scary in here, what with all the lunatics ranting that torture is OK if our guys do it, cause you see our guys are the good guys and while if the baddies torture then they are evil but if the goodies do then thats OK cause we are going it for the right reasons, forget the fact that the victims may actually be innocent ( what innocent, you must be a liberal idiot, noone is innocent our guys never ever capture the wrong guys, never ever bomb civilians, or shoot our allies) forget all that, a civilized nation should not torture people full stop, and forget the degrees of torture nonsense, what is wrong is wrong.

Posted by: liberal Idiot at June 17, 2005 04:06 AM (fxYIm)

91 Carlos, So TORTURE is ok with you? Can you look at that statement and totally agree? Because it means that if I torture YOU, you'll be ok with. You scare me, really

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 04:42 AM (vCCcy)

92 Kos = Hitler (Just kidding, Kos is obviously not even close to Hitler. But above does illustrate the insanity and stupidity of today's so-called "liberals" and their propaganda)

Posted by: Kos = Hitler at June 17, 2005 08:14 AM (Gi7oA)

93 >>>"So TORTURE is ok with you? " MJM, yup. And if you Lefties in your hatred for America decided to bomb our cities I'd personally torture you, MJM, too. I'm make you wear an underoos hat and I'd point my finger at your wiener to embarrass you, and then I'd get really rough and have some sexy naked broad rub her titties in your face. As you can see, I'm a monster.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 08:17 AM (8e/V4)

94 Nobody here is saying that torture is ALWAYS morally right (thought clearly sometimes it is...i.e. Ticking Bomb scenerio, etc). And pointing out that the US is NOT THE SAME as the Nazis, Soviets, Saddam, etc is NOT saying that torture is ALWAYS morally right either (though that is how you lefties desperately want to spin this). Leftism = Slave Morality. Never forget this. They WANT you to feel guilty, to accept that 1+2=6, that 20 is larger than 200. DON'T FALL FOR IT. It is just misdirection, and (given the posts of lefties here), they can't even do it well.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 08:19 AM (Gi7oA)

95 sigh says "To the people who immediately jumped to insults and generalizations, well, you're the reason political conversation in this country degenerates into simplistic shouting matches." Let's see, could it also have something to do with actual representitives of our country equating the actions of our military to those of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia. Do you suppose that the insults might stem from an anger towards anyone who could condone that? Since it's not true, it only aids our enemy and must make those currently sacrificing for us wonder why they even bother.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 17, 2005 08:28 AM (lVjfM)

96 Say goodbye to the moral highground. Before you had G.W.B. and 9/11 I usually could perceive the US having it. But now your just ruled by fear. And like Yoda says: fear leads to anger, which leads to hatred which leads to the dark side. by the way: Torture cannot be morally right in any situation.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 09:15 AM (vCCcy)

97 no, fear leads to Dhimmitude. Yoda was on the wrong planet.

Posted by: stevezilla at June 17, 2005 09:25 AM (5pZhc)

98 MJM, our enemies don't give a rat's ass about no moral highground, and it does me no good when I'm dead. I too used to be naive and spout empty platitudes back in my Lib days. Then I grew up and became a man and put that kind of tomfoolery behind me.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 09:26 AM (8e/V4)

99 Your enemies? Who are your enemies? And why would you die by their hand?

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 09:38 AM (vCCcy)

100 MJM, anybody who kills innocent Americans is my enemy. And they will die because of silly Liberals and their empty platitudes like "moral highground".

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 09:41 AM (8e/V4)

101 MJM: It is widely accepted that homicide is morally justified in self-defense and defense of other innocents. To say that torture would not be justifiable under those same circumstances seems inconsistent. Do you disagree with the first statement? If not, could you explain your thinking regarding the (apparent) contradiction.

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 09:42 AM (eNuaW)

102 Dhimmitude is dead on. Liberals (such as MJM) either want to become slaves or want YOU to become a slave. Sorry MJM, but I would rather be free than be a slave. If your "moral highground" means submitting to people who beat the shit our of women, stone gays to death and fly jetliners into office buildings, I guess I am not on your "moral highground." PS: It is YOU who is ruled by fear, especially fear of those you percieve as your "betters" (i.e. Europe). You might enjoy serfdom in the herd...but I will never submit.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 09:43 AM (Gi7oA)

103 ok, that was a hollow statement: anybody who kills innocent Iraqi's is my enemy. And they will die because of silly Americans and their empty platitudes like "democracy". Just to show you that perception is everything.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 09:47 AM (vCCcy)

104 MJM, When a civilized society is threatened by savages who will one day have the capability to wipe out a large number of us, not only is torture okay, it is morally mandated. Our survival trumps theirs. If you ask me why, I will tell you that it is because I want to survive. In a time of war, that is my morality - it is that simple. I may also point out that our civilization offers far more to society than the fascist theocracy of our enemies. In the end this is our war to loose, and it is people who think like you who are working - consciously or unconsciously - towards victory for the savages. The reason that I believe that China will one day overtake us as a superpower is that they are not so ignorant as to allow themselves to be hypnotized by their own love affair with the human mind. We would be wise to do the same. Civilization is nothing but a ephermeral veneer that shields us from savagery. People who think as you do have the luxury of pontificating about the world from a place of safety, shielded away from the raw life-and-death struggle of war. You confuse your naive concepts of the world with the way that the world actually works. People like you are dangerous. Rome proudly displayed their own form of moral superiority while the barbarians knocked at the gate. We all know how that ended. The fact is, when dealing with people like these you would be wise to sink below their level. Only a fool would stand transfixed by the creations in their own mind of such an undefinable conceptual framework as moral superiority. Who defines this morality? What the hell does moral superiority mean anyway? Talking and debating morals is okay for a civilized society in times of peace. It keeps us busy and helps us learn something about ourselves. However, in times or war against an enemy willing to kill themselves in order to murder as many of us as possible, all this talk and posturing is for ignorant fools who should still be sucking their thumbs.

Posted by: Lumpy at June 17, 2005 09:47 AM (mkMY1)

105 Just to show you that perception is everything. MJM, it's not hollow, it just means that people have reached a point where we'll just have to agree to disagree. In a democracy, we settle that by elections. But in war, we settle it with guns by blowing the other guy away. I'm in favor of blowing them away, they're in favor of blowing us away. To quote Wellington, hard pounding this, gentlemen, let's see who pounds the hardest. Now THAT'S what I call moral high ground.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 09:51 AM (8e/V4)

106 Carlos, Well put and to the point.

Posted by: Lumpy at June 17, 2005 09:53 AM (mkMY1)

107 MJM is almost parody, I couldn't have asked for a better example to illustrate the concept of Leftism being Slave Morality. He is willing to put his "morality" above his freedom, life and the lives of those he loves. The net result of this "morality" he pimps is slavery, mass murder and tyranny. He calls this wretched state "the higher ground" -- though it looks like Hell to me. Leftism is twisted and sick. It is insanity. MJM and Kos are either insane and sucidal... ...or are they just calculating their words will drive us mad enough to submit to them and call them Masters?

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 09:58 AM (Gi7oA)

108 Thanks Lumpy. But if I quote Wellington, I should at least quote him right. He said pound the LONGEST, not hardest, and he was right. Victory is about staying power, and the Left is sapping our staying power.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 09:58 AM (8e/V4)

109 Rooster, is that you?

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 10:00 AM (8e/V4)

110 Morgan, This is not an easy question, but I'll try to answer it. concerning statement 1#: If someone tries to kill me or someone I love then they are dead. statement 2#: this statement just doesn't have the same sense of urgency to it than statement 1# has. there must be time for you to do something else, besides spending valuable time torturing someone which may result in nothing.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 10:08 AM (vCCcy)

111 Carlos, I was unaware of the Wellington post error. When you stated the "I'm in favor of blowing them away, their in favor of blowing us away", you described the morality of war. To the other side and to outsiders, it may not seem moral. But when you pause a moment to look in on your children you begin to feel as if pulling out all of the stops against these savage bastards is the most moral thing that you could do. Liberals do not understand survival. They proved it in the last couple of elections and continue to prove it every time they open their mouths.

Posted by: Lumpy at June 17, 2005 10:09 AM (mkMY1)

112 >>>"Liberals do not understand survival. They proved it in the last couple of elections and continue to prove it every time they open their mouths." Lumpy, I won't deny their "good intentions", but you have touched on something that goes to the core of Liberalism. It's a destructive ideology, as you've suggested-- even to themselves! They are willing to kill the Democratic party for the sake of the "moral highground" because Liberalism, in its self-destructiveness, is primarily about idealism, not realism.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 10:15 AM (8e/V4)

113 What if torture will prevent someone from killing you or someone you love? What if the same person is already a criminal (mass murderer, rapist, etc), who should already be executed for a capital crime? So, in this case, is it always wrong to... * Raise or lower the tempature from 40-100 degrees * Flush a piece of paper down a toilet * Play rap or pop music for a length of time Are any above equal to th 12 million murdred in Nazi concetration capmps? Or the 2.5 million who were killed in the gulag? PS: I know worse torture was done too, but the we can discuss what degree of torture is right only when we have 1) defined torture and 2) accepted that sometime torture is morally necessary.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 10:16 AM (Gi7oA)

114 torture is morally necessary? this roughly equates to: Evil = Good how far you've fallen already.......

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 10:21 AM (vCCcy)

115 MJM, torture = evil? Always? What happenned to the complex and "nuanced" shades of gray Libs we've all come to know and love? and they say conservatives are black and white.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 10:26 AM (8e/V4)

116 I like movies. Remember "Dirty Harry," when the detective, in order to get information, stands on the wounded leg of the psycho who kidnapped a girl and put her in a hole with only so much to air to breath? That was against the law, but I believe it to have been morally justified. Libs called the film "fascist," but call it good detective work. Just like getting valuable information out of terrorists using whatever coersion is necessary is good detective work. The wacko in the film, and the terrorists--We're talking about criminals here, folks.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 17, 2005 10:29 AM (x+5JB)

117 "torture is morally necessary?" Sometimes, just as all violent force sometimes is. "this roughly equates to:" My view roughly equates to reality. Meanwhile your twisted "worldview" comes no where close to reality. So are you... 1) Insane and suicidal? 2) Just lying about your beliefs in order to trick us into giving you power? Which is it?

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 10:30 AM (Gi7oA)

118 Who said I was a liberal? Yes, torture is evil. It scars the torturer and the one tortured in ways I cannot even imagine. What good can come of it? leftism = slave mentality: torture will prevent someone from killing me? more likely someone will try to kill me after I tortured them.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 10:33 AM (vCCcy)

119 MJM: You have not defined torture. You have not shown how torture is different than any other type of violent force (which you already agreed is sometimes necessary). Read the "Dirty Harry" scenario above. Your example is contradictory, as you already said it torture (which you leave undefined) is always wrong - so who cares if it MIGHT stop someone from killing you? Maybe I was too hard by calling you either insane or liar (terms we use for sick adults), maybe you are just a silly child...

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 10:38 AM (Gi7oA)

120 MJM: A fair response. With regard to #1, good. At least we can count on you when the danger comes to your home. That's better than nothing. With regard to #2. It is fairly easy to imagine a scenario in which information leads to the capture of someone who has released a bioweapon somewhere in a large city - maybe he even told us himself. We don't know what the pathogen was - he won't say, and we don't know where to go to find out - he won't tell us that either. In any case, the number of people equipped to search for it is limited due to a finite supply of appropriate detection equipment. We need to identify the source and the pathogen quickly to prevent the spread of the disease through quarantine and to allow treatment to those who may have been exposed before it is too late. Obviously we should do what we can to search for the pathogen. Obviously we should also try to get the information from the terrorist. What methods would be appropriate?

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 10:42 AM (eNuaW)

121 >>>"It scars the torturer and the one tortured in ways I cannot even imagine. What good can come of it?" How bout saving lives. That's a good that can come of it. And in principle I would be willing to be "scarred" to save my friends and loved ones. Apparently you wouldn't, because you would selfishly choose to preserve your misguided moral purity. Dude, that's a faux high ground from where I'm looking at it. It's a caricature of morality, not real morality. Time for you Libs to grow up into adulthood and leave your childish way behind you.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 10:42 AM (8e/V4)

122 OK, you define torture and then I'll let you know if I agree with your definition. I do not contradict myself: torture is premeditated and not a spur of the moment self-defense act. And Dirty Harry is a movie character, not a real person. No, it would seem that I am the only sane person on this board.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 10:50 AM (vCCcy)

123 What would be the reason for torture? * Punishment, revenge, cruelty or even deterrence -- We can agree that these are probably unwise and hope our policies are not based on these. Is this unclear to leftists? * To gain information -- Again, as illustrated above, there are cases in which this is necessary. What are the acceptable degress of torture? I have yet to see how playing loud music or raising the tempature or flushing a piece of paper down a toilet are the same as electorshock, the rack, breaking limbs, etc. (or the same as a gulag!) Who should be the target of torture? I think everyone agrees that innocent people should never be tortured. But what about those in process of planning mass murder (of possibly millions of people)? What about ununiformed enemy combatants (who technically could be summarily executed)? Leftists as "nuanced"? Please, they are more black/white manichean than anybody (especially when it comes to defining conservatives/US/Bush/military as Officially Evil).

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 10:54 AM (Gi7oA)

124 >>>"No, it would seem that I am the only sane person on this board." Insane people don't know they're insane.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 10:55 AM (8e/V4)

125 I don't need to define torture, as I don't see it any differently from any other less-than-lethal violent act. And such acts are sometimes morally necessary to inflict on other people. War is premeditated and often leads to death. Is all war always wrong? Arrests by the police (which often use violence) are premeditated, is this always wrong? The fact Dirty Harry is a movie character is irrelvent. It was being used as example of a possible real world situation. I doubt both your sanity and your ability to piece together a concept. Your specialty seems to be barfing up cliches and abstract leftist talking points.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 11:04 AM (Gi7oA)

126 "And Dirty Harry is a movie character, not a real person." MJM: Thanks for clarifying this. But one may look at something "not real" to prove a point or to get people thinking about an issue. It's more real than a hypothetical situation, no? Answer this question if you've seen the film. Do you believe the detective was wrong to get the information that way?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 17, 2005 11:04 AM (x+5JB)

127 Morgan, A very nice scenario you've got there. But is flawed. When a pathogen has been released in the environment you will not find out about it until it is too late. Because a terrorist wants to succeed so he won't tell you/me/us about it until we know it has happened. In a large city the population is higly mobile and the best you can hope for is containing the pathogen in the city. You cannot stop someone who is determined to die, and he won't help you by telling you what he will do ( no neon signs pointing to the terrorist). We could play this game for all eternity, you crafting scenario's until I agree that I am tempted to torture the suspect. But all the scenario's would need 1 thing: time. How much time does it take to break someone? And will he speak the truth when broken? And remember the motivation of the terrorist is: every moment I hang on, I'm killing someone else.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 11:22 AM (vCCcy)

128 MJM: There are no guarantees. But one, in that position as interrogator, has to try.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 17, 2005 11:32 AM (x+5JB)

129 MJM: It seems that you have now decided that torture is always wrong because it never works (produces no information, false information, or anything it does produce necessarily comes too late to do any good) and/or it is impossible to catch a person who has information that might allow us to save lives. If these things are true, you are right. Ill-treatment of any kind to obtain information is never justifiable, because it never, ever works. At least your resort to these fallback rationalizations indicates that you see some circumstances under which some things that some people call torture would be justified - it's just that you've asserted that these circumstances can never exist. So that's where we disagree, and that's where I'll leave it. Nice chatting with you.

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 11:39 AM (eNuaW)

130 " But one, in that position as interrogator, has to try." What, and spite his precious ego? Much easier to say "all torture is wrong always" and pat yourself on the back as "morally superior" even if it leads to your own slavery or death or hurts those you claim to love. Rememeber: If the terrorist is cocain addict and you deprive him of his drugs (a painful process) it is torturing him, which makes you the same as Hitler. If you stick a terrorist behind bars and he says "I hate being confined, it's torture to be here!" then you are worse than Pol Pot.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 11:41 AM (Gi7oA)

131 MJM, your Liberals beliefs have all the trappings of a religion.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 11:42 AM (8e/V4)

132 It never works and/or it is impossible to catch a person? Based on what evidence? History is filled with thousands (possibly millions) of people who talked to authorities under pressure and gave information leading to arrests/captures. US detectives and DAs do this on a daily basis. It is insane and ignorent to pretend otherwise. Please.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 11:46 AM (Gi7oA)

133 How do we really know kos was ex military? Just because he says so? Lots of liberals do that. My bootcamp was rougher then what they are enduring....

Posted by: M Evan at June 17, 2005 11:58 AM (xYQ4W)

134 Notice to visiting leftards. Those of you who have come here from kos or whatever piece-of-garbage, sedition-spouting waste of cyberspace you normally inhabit take note of the following: We, the people who feel that the security of the nation comes before the comfort of murderes, have had it with your crap. You hate George Bush more than Osama bin Laden. You think worse of conservatives than you do of terrorists. You would see us lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan just so that you could use it against the GOP. We are sick of your lies, your slander, your sedition, and your treason. One day, maybe soon, we could get hit again with another terrorist attack. The probability is very high, and you all seem bent on hobbling those whose job it is to protect us. If that happens, be warned, it won't go well for you. We are many, we are pissed off, and we are capable of acting. If you continue to side with our enemies, you will be treated as enemies, because to many of us, there is no difference between a terrorist and those who give them aid and comfort. If we have another 9/11, don't go out with your anti-American protest signs, because I think that if you do, you might not like what follows. This isn't a threat, it's an observation. We've had it with your crap. You are like a sickness that plagues this country, and if you don't amend your ways, you will be purged. If you can't bring yourselves to love your country more than some twisted fascist ideology, then you should leave and go someplace where your views are more in line with the mainstream, like North Korea. The clock is ticking down on you, it's time to decide which side you're on.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 17, 2005 12:49 PM (0yYS2)

135 Did you hear Durbin try to defend his despicable rant today? He said the Nazi, Soviet, Pol Pot references were appropriate, given the "context" of the FBI memo. Wow! Imagine how different history would have been if the worst things the Nazis, Soviets, or Pol Pot ever did were the things described in the memo.

Posted by: Jim O'Sullivan at June 17, 2005 01:06 PM (6+o02)

136 Morgan, No, torture is just inherently "wrong". Because I noticed that this had no effect I described why torture doesn't work. Just take a look at 9/11: No terrorist on the radar, until it was too late to stop them. ---- And another quote: Fear is the mindkiller.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 01:21 PM (gUdrU)

137 How about this for a quote: MJM = Slave Morality

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 01:30 PM (Gi7oA)

138 Nothing constructive to say huh? You are a slave to fear, bow before your Master.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 01:37 PM (gUdrU)

139 You are projecting. It is you who is driven by fear. Look how you fear to answer my questions? Look how you dodge my arguments? Shameful.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 01:48 PM (Gi7oA)

140 How dare you, Senator Durbin? How dare you compare conditions at Guantamo Bay with the Nazi death camps, the Soviet gulag or Pol Pot's killing fields? How many millions of people have died at Guantanamo Bay? How many total? ZERO. The very comparison shows a colossal ignorance of history. Lavrenti Beria and Reinhard Heydrich would look up at you from whatever circle of Hell they currently occupy, ask, "How many millions of prisoners have you killed?" and when you told them "Zero, but we made some of them VERY uncomfortable," they would laugh at you for the rank amateur that you are. Senator Durbin needs to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. and maybe make a road trip to Cambodia to visit the museum there that commemorates the two million people killed by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. He needs to look at the pictures from the liberation of the Nazi death camps by Americans at the end of World War II, he needs to re-read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's works, and then he needs to ask himself the question: What do all of these have in common? The answer: In every case, the prisoners were systematically being starved to death. Starvation is the tool in every tyrant's toolbox. Contrast with the prisoners at Gitmo, who actually have GAINED weight while in captivity. They are probably better fed, better housed and receiving better medical care than they ever have in their lives. And then there's another question: How many people in Cuba, outside of Guantanamo Bay, even HAVE air conditioning at all? How many of our soldiers in Iraq? Damn few. Finally, Senator Durbin needs to remember exactly who these prisoners are. One of them is the man who was believed to be the "20th hijacker" from 9/11, who was turned away by an alert Customs agent. The jihadis at Guantanamo Bay would slit Senator Durbin's throat as soon as look at him, and would ululate "Allahu akbar!' while they did it. Indeed, if not for the heroic actions of the passengers of Flight 93 on 9/11, jihadis just like those at Gitmo would have flown that plane into either the White House or the Capitol Building where Senator Durbin works. Frankly, on 9/11 and for about year thereafter, I would have had no problem if the guards at Gitmo had repeatedly Tasered the testicles of every jihadi there to get them to talk. These prisoners are not legitimate prisoners of war covered by the Geneva Convention; they were in civilian clothes and as such could have been shot out of hand when they were captured. The fact that we didn't do that shows more loudly than Senator Durbin's windy speech that we most assuredly are not like the Nazis, the Soviets or the Khmer Rouge. And consider that many of them have been repatriated and of those, about a dozen have been recaptured, with others doubtlessly killed fighting against us. If anything, we have been too kind to them. One last word for the Senator: Don't be such a Dick, Durbin.

Posted by: Clyde at June 17, 2005 01:51 PM (T2PVS)

141 Oh I see, you were equating criminals with terrorists and interrogation with torture. And you actually expect an answer? Here goes: No amount of torture will prevent a terrorist act from happening.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 01:57 PM (gUdrU)

142 Perhaps it is time that we all take another look at the beheading videos again. I can't set a link in the comments section, but I have a link to correct section in Young Nationalist on my blog (just click on Lumpy below and look in the first story). MJM, have you ever had the opportunity to view these videos? If not, please take a few moments out of your sheltered life to do so. While viewing, it is helpful to have Dick Durban's comments as well some pictures from Abu Gharib nearby for comparison. I am sure that you spent hours agonizing over the Abu photos and cursing your own country, so thirty minutes of your time should not be asking too much. Let us all know what you think.

Posted by: Lumpy at June 17, 2005 02:04 PM (mkMY1)

143 MJM: I was equating nothing. It is a fact of reality that people talk during interrogations (under pressure) and that this often leads to arrests/captures. What you call "torture" is what is called "pressure." So quit dodging and give me an arguement otherwise. Provide evidence that nobody in history has ever cracked under pressure and nobody has ever been caught as a consequence.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 02:05 PM (Gi7oA)

144 MJM, Libs are TERRIFIED of not being approved of. You crave to be liked and approved of. We conservatives couldn't care less.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 02:10 PM (8e/V4)

145 Lumpy, I don't need to see the beheading video. I hope you'll find the people that made the tape and kill them. Besides not being a Liberal I'm also not an US citizen. This does give me some perspective and objectivity.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 02:20 PM (gUdrU)

146 >>>"Besides not being a Liberal I'm also not an US citizen." So then why should we give a flying fuck what you think? My god, don't you have a country of your own to criticize? Go criticize your own damn country. Americans are going to do what we believe is in the best interests of our country, and we're not going to take counsel from craven and cowardly Frenchies and foreigners such as yourself who only wish to see America fall to its knees.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 02:30 PM (8e/V4)

147 Yup, Torture is in the best interest of your country? Maybe we don't want to see you crash and burn? Yeah, you don't need any advice, you're doing just FINE. Never mind that your president LIED to you, never mind that your bleeding to death in Iraq, never mind the deficit. Unilateral Self-Destruction ;>

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 02:37 PM (gUdrU)

148 MJM, a little bit of torture would have worked wonders on Mohammed Atta before 9/11. It would have averted the attack and the subsequent invasions of the middle east. An unlikely scenario you say? Perhaps. But it just goes to show you that a little bit of torture CAN be in our best interests. This is such a rational point, I can only assume your politics are not rational, but religious. You are a Leftwing fundamentalist.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 02:41 PM (8e/V4)

149 MJM: You would be better off cutting and pasting from here: www.spinline.net/cy/lefterator.pl Too bad I wasted my time attempting a discussion with a Left-Bot.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 02:41 PM (Gi7oA)

150 >>>"Besides not being a Liberal I'm also not an US citizen." Lumpy, "not being a Liberal" is code for Leftist. When you think someone's a Liberal but he denies it, assume he's a Leftist that believes Libs are too namby pamby. I've usually found that to be the case.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 02:44 PM (8e/V4)

151 Carlos, Still the question remains: How much TIME does it require to break someone? If you had Atta 12 hours before 9/11 and tortured him, could you've prevented it? 24 hours? 36 hours? 48 hours? Your not rational, believe me, you're the person whose ok with torture, remember? Left-Bot, Right-Bot, which leads me to another piece of advice: replace the democrats and republicans with new and more political parties. Could be refreshing for you and quite possibly could get you out of your trenches.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 02:55 PM (gUdrU)

152 It is ironic that today's "liberals" are not very liberal. Liberalism used to mean "individual freedom" - now it means socialists (just as "progressive" means regressive and reactionary).

Posted by: L at June 17, 2005 02:56 PM (Gi7oA)

153 How much time depends on the circumstances. But it is still possible to extract information...and you have YET to prove otherwise. YOU'RE not being very rational and English must be your second language. Nor do you understand the two-party system.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 03:05 PM (Gi7oA)

154 Let's see MJM, you won't/can't define torture, but you know it is inherently wrong, though homicide isn't, but you won't/can't explain your reasoning. You are certain that torture (which you can't define) can not extract useful information, though you won't/can't reply to criticism of that notion. You know that "no amount of torture will prevent a terrorist act from happening", which, given that you are certain that no useful information can be gained through its use, would seem to be a necessary conclusion (even if we don't know what torture is). Albeit one that rests on an assertion that has been challenged, a challenge to which you won't/can't reply. You feel that tactics intended to pressure a person into disclosing information in the course of an interrogation of a suspected criminal can not be equated with the use of tactics intended to pressure a person into disclosing information in the course of an interrogation of a suspected terrorist. You won't/can't explain why this is, though it would seem to rely on terrorists not being people in the same way that criminals are. You also seem to think that if it wasn't possible to obtain information from people whom you did not have them in custody, it must, therefore, be impossible to obtain information from those you do. Or maybe it's impossible to get information about someone else. Or something. Okay. All very, um... Avoidant? Unsubstantive? Illogical? Let me leave you with a challenge. You stated: "No amount of torture will prevent a terrorist act from happening." I believe that interrogation of terrorists in custody might extract information that leads to the prevention of such an act by others. Torture (whatever that means - let's say holding someone in a cold room) might be more likely to extract that information. Here is your challenge - to answer a question: Where am I wrong?

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 03:05 PM (eNuaW)

155 >>>"Your not rational, believe me, you're the person whose ok with torture, remember?" You may call me "immoral", and that's fine. But that's a religious statement, and in no way does it make me irrational. We've all given you reasons why it is rational, but you've offered only platitudes for why it's not, i.e., it's not "nice." Do you see how the secular Left has replaced traditional religion with one of their own creation? It's so obvious. You don't believe things rationally and you adhere blindly to platitudes as if they were holy scripture. >>>"Still the question remains: How much TIME does it require to break someone? If you had Atta 12 hours before 9/11 and tortured him, could you've prevented it? 24 hours? 36 hours? 48 hours?" That depends on how effective the torture was. Christina Aguilera songs probably would not have done the trick. But putting his balls in a vice might have worked wonders.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 03:11 PM (8e/V4)

156 "Christina Aguilera songs probably would not have done the trick." I would write the word "Allah" on a napkin and flush it down the toilet. Or maybe "Bob." OH the humanity! What a Nazi I am for flushing a napkin down the drain! It's a gulag!

Posted by: NUANCED at June 17, 2005 03:15 PM (Gi7oA)

157 Morgan, Because I felt that differing meanings of torture were in use I asked someone on this board to give me their version of what torture means, that was never given but if you are so desperate for it: Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions. Why torture cannot yield useful information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Incrimination_of_innocent_people This is so basic that I thought it needed no clarification, my mistake. The interrogation of a criminal and the torturing of a terrorist is not the same thing. Different term with different semantics are used. Thus again, this is so obvious I thought I did not need to clarify, my mistake (again) Concerning the new scenario: Welcome to the wonderful world of adaptive terrorism, your terrorist in the cold room, wonÂ’t break before his terrorist cell buddies discover his absence. And because terror strikes are probably cell structured and probably have redundancies incorporated into them the attack just goes ahead, even if you manage to dismantle one cell. So in conclusion: you tortured, the attack happened anyway, maybe the body count was less but you prevented nothing.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 03:35 PM (gUdrU)

158 Carlos, Immoral behaviour is a sign of an irrational mind.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 03:51 PM (gUdrU)

159 I don't have time to read all the comments here, so apologies if I'm repeating anyone's points. I have just a few points to express. 1. I'm a liberal, and quite stridetently anti-Bush. 2. You are clearly right, and Kos clearly is being stupid and partisan. 3. The nazi-comparison Durbin made is fairly par for the course in political rhetoric. I don't like Durbin's use, but, let's not forget this is a bipartisan failing.

Posted by: Michael R at June 17, 2005 03:53 PM (7NWu1)

160 Your definition is horribly flawed (problaby because it was lifted from an online message board). How are physical or psychological the same? If I insult your mother (whom you love) am I torturing you? Define "severe" in a reality where perceptions are subjective? Your weaselly dodge of the interrogation issue is pathetic. Interrogation is an action, regardless if it is used on a criminal or terrorist. Don't bother trying to blame your own lack of understanding on "semantics." You won't answer, because you don't think for yourself. Your :example" is completely stupid. It is a fact of reality that humans are not omniciant or oppnipitant. Your "example" assumes the opposite.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 03:54 PM (Gi7oA)

161 "let's not forget this is a bipartisan failing." So Durbin is the VICTIM here? Wow.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 03:56 PM (Gi7oA)

162 Michael R, my hat is off to you.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 03:58 PM (8e/V4)

163 At least I give a definition, you didn't remember? consult a dictionary: interrogation does not equal torture. I answer, I think and I don't follow the partyline, I haven't yet had the pleasure of you doing the same. it's omnipotent, and some careful planning can take you far. Terrorism is quite simple, all it takes is an immoral person and some hardware, or boxcutters will suffice in a pinch. mmm torture is immoral too, the US must then be turning into a terrorist spawning ground

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 04:05 PM (gUdrU)

164 L=SM No, please be more charitable. I simply meant to keep in mind this is a problem in our national political discourse on both sides of the aisle. *IF* anyone were to think "it's only the other side," then such blindness only exacerbates the ineffectualtiy of the debate. I think recognizing this as a common failing of both parties allows us a common ground.

Posted by: Michael R at June 17, 2005 04:07 PM (7NWu1)

165 MJM: That's roughly the definition I posted last night from the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Now if we define "severe", we'll be on our way. Difficult to do, isn't it. Maybe examples would work: Dripping nitric acid on a person bound to a chair: Severe Attaching electrodes to a person's genetalia and turning on the current: Severe Crushing fingers in a vise: Severe Christina Aguilera: Not severe Hot/cold rooms: Not severe Stress positions: Not severe Your link regarding incrimination of innocent people under duress is not pursuasive. Of course people may say things that aren't true in an attempt to get out of the situation. They may also provide real information. Even if I have to put 10 people under surveillance to find the one that is really plotting, I'm a lot better off. You still have not explained why the interrogation of a criminal and the torturing of a terrorist are not the same thing. You've stated that they are different, but have not explained why a terrorist won't talk under pressure but a criminal will. How do you know how quickly my terrorist in a cold room will break? He may talk in an hour, he may not. Your entire "time" argument sounds like a rationale for more severe techniques - you know, the ones that actually qualify as torture - not a reason not to use them. And what is the artificial time limit on these things? Terrorist attacks aren't generally planned in a day (at least, not by al-Qaeda). If it takes a month to get him to talk, but he names names, that's a group that is out of commission as a terrorist cell. Maybe a coordinating contact (you know, the guy who you think is probably around to tell the second cell that the first one was compromised), or a moneyman, too. Maybe their records with names and contacts of other terrorists. Take out the terrorists, and you take out future terrorist acts. Simple, really. So I didn't have to torture, though Senator Durbin might call it so, I rolled-up an entire network of terrorists, and I prevented any number of future attacks.

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 04:09 PM (eNuaW)

166 No, you cut and pasted something from a message board. "Torture" is subjective, interrogation is a real action. You follow a party-line so much I think you are a parody or satire (hope I didn't spoil the joke). Too bad you didn't use a dictionary for the rest of my post, or else you would know what "omnipotent" means. But thanks for the "non-partisan" US bashing. It shows how open-minded you are (which is not very).

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 04:09 PM (Gi7oA)

167 Michael R: Understood. You are being all fair and balenced and all that. Good for you. Maybe you can bring the Party of JKF and Scoop Jackson back to life.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 04:14 PM (Gi7oA)

168 I didn't leave the asinine comment above that is attributed to me. It was somebody from your side, folks. A sign of the desperation felt on the right these days, perhaps?

Posted by: The Liberal Avenger at June 17, 2005 04:50 PM (kgBuS)

169 Morgan, hot-cold rooms: define hot and cold? stress-positions: how long? I can't believe I actually have to tell you what what is but here goes. Interrogation: not usually associated with severe pain Torture: associated with pain, curel and unusual punishment. criminal vs terrorist: I believe we have a little misunderstanding, in your previous scenario I highlighted why a terrorist would not talk, in this particular case his motivation was to increase the body count. taking out the terrorists reduces future terror strikes? Look at Iraq, those suicide bombers just keep coming don't they? their taking out themselves at a rapid pace but they don't seem to run out of volunteers. let's forget about the artificial time limit and answer me this. Has the torture prevented anything at all that we know of? --- L-SM Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is the power to do absolutely anything. This trait is usually attributed only to God. Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence include Creation and miracles. I haven't bashed the US, nor do I feel a particular need to. (if you really want me too I'll give it a try though ;->)

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 05:32 PM (gUdrU)

170 Can't trackback, so just letting you know I've linked as well

Posted by: urthshu at June 17, 2005 05:36 PM (2qJi3)

171 Define hot and cold - sorry, since the thread was prompted by Senator Durbin's statements, I assumed you were familiar with them and would recognize the reference. Hot = "probably well over 100 degrees" (that's actually from the FBI report, Durbin apparently left out the "probably"). Cold = air conditioning turned down so that a barefoot man shivers. Stress positions - not specified by the good senator. Interrogation and torture are independent concepts. Torture is something that may, or may not, occur during the course of interrogation. As are any techniques that fall short of torture. Re: terrorists not talking. You've indicated why a terrorist won't want to talk, but criminals also don't generally want to talk. They talk during interrogations, which include techniques to put them under mental and physical stress, and they talk to get out of the situation. Why wouldn't terrorists be subject to the same technique? These techniques exist on a continuum from less severe to more severe. There are two questions I'm interested in. The first question is "where do you draw the line?" Saying that torture is not allowed, even offering a definition that specifies that torture causes "severe" pain, without providing some kind of specification regarding where "severe" sits is minimally informative. The second is "do the justifiable techniques vary with the situation?" This is more-or-less the same question as "Is it ever justifiable to torture someone?", though you could have a hybrid system in which the justifiable line slides up to, but never beyond, the "severe" line. You seem to be arguing that the "torture/not torture" cutoff = the "severe/not severe" cutoff = the "justifiable/unjustifiable" cutoff in all situations, or for the hybrid, in which "severe" = "torture" and is the upper limit for justifiable (I'd say probably for the hybrid - I feel comfortable asserting that most people would say that techniques that are justifiably used with hardened criminals and terrorist suspects are not justifiably used when trying to determine whether a child threw a spitball). So now you're king, and I'd like to know what techniques I can use in the course of interrogating suspected terrorists. Or common criminals. But I'm afraid to shine a light in his eyes, because it might be called torture. Does taking out terrorists prevent future terrorist strikes? Of course. Those terrorists will never strike. That others do hardly invalidates the point. As for whether torture has prevented anything that we know of, I don't know that there has been any torture to prevent anything. I certainly am not privy to the information gained during interrogations of detainees. I do know that techniques that fall on what I would call the non-torture side of the line can be effective in eliciting truthful confessions and other information, and it is reasonable to think that more severe techniques, by increasing the motivation to get out of the situation, would be even more effective. I also know that networks have been rolled-up much as I described, as when Abu Farraj al-Libbi was captured and interrogated in Pakistan in May. I don't know what techniques were used in the interrogation.

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 06:23 PM (eNuaW)

172 Great job, Rusty; thanks for the reminders.

Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at June 17, 2005 06:49 PM (Y99DR)

173 hmm... not real torture. nice argument. what about the hundred or so suspicious deaths at US military prisons, or the two or three extremely well-documented cases where US soldiers killed perfectly innocent civilians in the interrogation process? I guess that's not real murder. If the people in Gitmo are guilty of something, prosecute them - charge them with a crime - make their names public - allow outside communication, humanitarian aid. It is my belief that most of the poor souls at Gitmo have nothing whatsoever to do with international terrorism and are essentially political prisoners being tortured to extract information they simply don't have. PROVE ME WRONG. prosecute or at least charge them with crimes, make their names public and allow them to build a defense. Detaining people secretly and indefinitely is EXACTLY the sort of thing the Nazis and Russians did. Aren't we supposed to be better than that?

Posted by: money mo at June 17, 2005 07:03 PM (0LopM)

174 >>>"PROVE ME WRONG." money mo, we don't have to prove JACK to you. It's you who's got to prove something, and so far you've got SQUAT-- just rumour and innuendo. And that's exactly why your side constantly has to fall back on hyperbole, because the simple facts are the matter are so boring and mundane. Gulag schmuuulag.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 07:51 PM (8e/V4)

175 Dear Senator Durbin, Let's play a game of pretend. Let's say you are my prisoner and you have information about the enemy I need. I am trying to make your situation stressful enough that you will answer my questions about Al Quida. Lives are at stake and I need to get answers. However, I'm a compassionate interrogator so you can have your choice of stressors. Just answer these questions. 1. I have a set of bolt cutters and a pair of women's panties. You have your choice of answers. Shall I remove your fingers one by one with the bolt cutters or would you prefer to be humiliated by putting the panties on your head? 2. I have a bundle of sharpened bamboo slivers and the thermostat in your cell. Would you prefer to have slivers placed under your finger and toe nails one at a time or to have the temperature in your cell turned down to 50 degrees? 3. I have a rubber hose tipped with a lead ball and I also have a tape recorder with rock music on it. Would you rather I methodically beat you on your legs and arms with the rubber hose or play very loud rock music to you all night long? 4. I have dental forceps and a cloth hood with a small stool. Would you rather I pull your teeth one by one or put the hood over your head and make you sit on the stool with your hands chained to an eyebolt in the floor? 5. I have a dull sword and an iron digging bar. Would you rather I use the sword to slowly decapitate you or let you stand for several hours holding the digging bar across your shoulders? I'm pretty sure I know what your answers would be, but I just wanted to put the questions to you so we could clear the air. Sincerely, A Taxpayer

Posted by: Jimmy J at June 17, 2005 10:06 PM (tko+5)

176 So KOS is a bad ass because he was in the military, huh? I'll bet that POS was in charge of peeling potatoes at the back line. If KOS believes it is his freedom of speech to diss the real military, then I will gladly show him my freedom of expression by thumping his pre-frontal cortex with a bat, given the chance.

Posted by: BT at June 17, 2005 10:16 PM (0kiXY)

177 mjm,l=sm,carlos ... stop going in circles. There are 2 continuums: procedures and need. I think we of the non-liberal/left can agree that inducing ouch-or-above is wrong unless it has some high chance to save 1 or more lives. We happen to count capture-of-a-terror-cell-leader as 'saving lives'. The left does not agree. (The _left_ thinks anything done for a good cause (USSR, socialism, anti-USA) is fair game and that nothing the US ever does is beyond criticism, even saving muslims in Bosnia. _Liberals_ aren't that extreme (and don't ignore the USSR's evil, etc) and just wish the world was more utopian.) So the need continuum ranges from preventing future attacks that have not yet even been planned by near incompetents at the bottom of aQ all the way up to a post-US-city-nuking scenario of the hunt to find-the-nuke-factory or find-the-next-bomb. The procedures continuum is partially-linear: * holding in a jail cell (no more) * jail with no communication, long duration * temp / light / noise stress (induce exhaustion) * food/water removal, short duration * cramp-stress (non-damaging positions) * gulag-type overwork * low damage stress (ligament strain) * food/water removal, long duration * high damage stress (things torn or broken) * fast trauma (beatings, whipping, etc) * slow trauma (fingernails pulled out, pliers) * electricity @ sensitive areas (gonads, tongue) * drowning-revival-drowning-revival ... repeat * witnessing damage/rape of spouse/child * amputation, gunshots, stabbing, etc And partially non-linear: * religious reprogramming (wahibism = distortion) * religious torment (pigs, naked jew fem guards) * embarassment (naked pyramids, genital comments) * mind-altering-drugs (relaxants thru hypnotics) * fear (2 US cities nuked=1.3B muslims die) * education (islam stunted mideast development) * lies and distortions,interrogator oddities,etc As far as the civilized world is concerned, anything on the linear scale above cramp-positions for exhaustion is generally wrong, maybe excepting for WMD scenarios. I believe that going above exhaustion-inducing is counterproductive _especially_ when you _need_ an answer, like in the WMD scenario ... just skip straight to drugs, Chem-war-treaties-be-damned. (This is most likely why the CIA never registers their prisoners with anyone.) I uncomfortably agree with the libs who point out that WMD-planting terrorists will lie after holding out as long as possible ... they will be trained to simulate accurate information release, further delaying finding that second nuke or the factory/supplier/pathway. (Therefore go straight to Israeli/Soviet type drugs regardless if there is still an intact mind left when you are done.) (BTW: it is safe to bet that we are doing this with the CIA capturees like Khalid Sheik Mohammad and anyone else at/near their level.) Now for the flip side of that argument: WHY DO WE CAPTURE ILLEGAL COMBATANTS THAT THE GENEVA CONVENTION INDICATES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR IMMEDIATE EXECUTION? (sorry for shouting) There are 2 reasons: * compassion (some army guys still want to be the good guys or we just cannot find an excuse to double-tap them in the skull) * information that capturees might provide Liberals / Leftists: be aware that your campaign against the most kind prisons in the history of warfare has certainly induced many in the fighting forces to STOP TAKING PRISONERS. Think about it ... if we cannot store these aQ militants for the duration because of our fifth-columnists, and noone wants to fight them a second time, the low-enders won't be captured alive. Just like elephants: if you want more of something (live prisoners, elephants, cattle), make the target valuable to those who would maintain them. Cows are valuable to farmers, elephants are not, therefore except for recent elephant-tourism, elephants were/are hunted nearly to extinction, where as we have insane numbers of cows. If elephants could be managably farmed for tusk ivory, especially if they could be sheared like sheep and be induced to regrow, Africa would be overwhelmed by elephants. (offtopic: Oddly enough, Zimbabwe has an excess elephant problem ... and no live farmers (Mugabe=leftist/socialist/racist)). Anyway, if you liberals/leftists make capturing and keeping prisoners valueless or of negative worth, the anti-Jihadi forces will simply stop capturing anyone not of obvious value. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Please try to keep this discourse less circular and more useful. Anyone high enough in aQ etc with useful information probably will lie after holding out to pain, so skip straight to drugs. Anyone susceptible to reveal truth to pain probably knows nothing particularly useful anyway and since the libs/leftists will make a fuss over their captivity, just don't bother to capture them. Anyone indeterminate, just keep them awake for 72 hours and listen to what they babble about: kids, wives (plural), work, family, allah ... let them go home. Jihad, Semtex, AK-47s, bin-Laden, Zarqawi, aQ, infidels, Wahibbi-ite dogma, lock them up for the duration or hand them over to their home country for long-term storage. Maybe try to convert them by counter-preaching.

Posted by: Other at June 17, 2005 10:24 PM (4146Y)

178 Is it too late to blame the Jews for all this?

Posted by: Wine-aholic at June 17, 2005 10:41 PM (hL7po)

179 MJM, I was born in Canada - does that give me a different perspective? What does not being a US citizen have to do with any of this discussion? The participants in this discussion fall into two groups: naive, crazy liberals and everyone else.

Posted by: Lumpy at June 17, 2005 10:57 PM (zzzPq)

180 I apologize, because I'm sure this was mentioned in a comment above, but I have to take issue with one thing. Calling for violence against Kos is just wrong. I agree with you that his comparison is ludicrous, but what makes us better than the fascists we're fighting is that he has the right to express his ludicrous opinion. Again, I'm sure that's a sentiment that's been expressed already. I'd just like to add my two cents.

Posted by: Robert at June 17, 2005 11:46 PM (M3g5N)

181 Why is it when the leftards show up, the viagra spammers are never far behind? They seem to run in packs. For some reason. Like they're associated. Or already have a relationship. For some reason...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 18, 2005 08:34 AM (0yYS2)

182 The mystery poster known only as "L", hit the nail squarely on the head when he(she?) wrote: "It is ironic that today's "liberals" are not very liberal." "Liberalism used to mean "individual freedom" - now it means socialists (just as "progressive" means regressive and reactionary)." It is all the tactic of the Big Lie. They twist every word to mean its opposite, as Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm and 1984. Freedom is slavery, etc.. This is why they're harping on "torture". If they're calling it torture, it must not be bad at all. If they were calling it "reeducation", though, you could be assured there would be fingernails pulled out and jumper cables on the sensitive bits. Liberals are lying, treasonous cowards who support terrorism 100% regardless of anything they might say. One needs no further proof than to look at their actions and compare them to their fair words. Whereas we hope for the death of Osama, they hope for the death of Bush. Doesn't take a genius to figure out whose side they're on. Their time is coming soon though. Real soon.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 18, 2005 10:05 AM (0yYS2)

183 sigh said: " Where do you draw the line between acceptable methods and torture (or abuse -- I can't say that I take a great deal of comfort in saying that we don't torture, we abuse), and how does that distinction reflect on "the kind of people we are"? Posted by: sigh at June 17, 2005 12:33 AM " You may not take a great deal of comfort in telling the difference between torture and abuse, but you sure as hell would if you were actually subjected to torture, and not the mild discomforts some terrorists experience at Gitmo.

Posted by: Les Nessman at June 18, 2005 06:54 PM (XQxrI)

184 It is a strange sort of torture when the "torturee" is not actually hurt!

Posted by: Rick B. at June 18, 2005 08:56 PM (0IqSw)

185 It's a strange sort of concentration camp where the inmates come out weighing more than they went in, with their teeth fixed and any medical problems they might have had cared for! (BTW, if you're using Moveable Type for this blog, MT Blacklist does WONDERS to keep the spammers at bay.) J.

Posted by: JLawson at June 18, 2005 10:59 PM (ApmN8)

186 Isn't it funny how the ACLU thinks Gitmo is torture, but pedophilia isn't?

Posted by: NYgirl at June 19, 2005 11:53 AM (JEAUq)

187 You may want to add that the purpose of the iron maiden was to pierce the flesh of the victim, but not where there was a vital organ. Doing this to the victim would keep him or her in agony for a long period of time before eventualy dying.

Posted by: Nigel at June 19, 2005 05:51 PM (Ih2LO)

188 NYgirl observed: "Isn't it funny how the ACLU thinks Gitmo is torture, but pedophilia isn't?" Yeah, the things that wacky leftards are willing to defend and the things they find offensive only serve to illustrate that they suffer as a group from some sort of mental disorder.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 20, 2005 12:49 PM (0yYS2)

189 I've read Kos. I've read this. Kos says, essentially, that torture in any form is as bad if the US does it as if Saddam does it. You choose to split hairs, jumping up and down with 'graphic evidence' to show that Saddam's torture is much, much worse than American torture. Lucky for Americans that they live in a country with nice torture, instead of nasty Iraqi torture. Sure, it's not nitric acid dripped on your head, but you'll find that in most American states, anybody who locked a dog in a car and the temperature climbed over 100F would be arrested and charged with cruelty. Yep. Good thing it's only nice torture in the good old US of A.

Posted by: Flinthart at June 20, 2005 11:20 PM (H//Y9)

190 Gotaa knock off the torturing, Knuckles! http://www.markfiore.com/animation/knuckles.html

Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 21, 2005 02:50 AM (FV4oJ)

191 "How many more lies.. treat me the way you wanna do..." Beatings will continue until prisoner morale improves? Sounds like an advert for Al Qaeda recruiters! "Look what they're doing, join the Jihad! Get your revenge on America while the scandal is hot!!"

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 21, 2005 07:12 AM (ScqM8)

192 All you rightwingnuts need to go to the nearest recruiter and sig your lazy asses up for a four year hitch in the Army as an MOS 11 Bravo, and then, only then may you talk shit about this war.

Posted by: Aging Veteran at June 27, 2005 05:07 PM (aHbua)

193 Jesus, you're stupid. Kos was saying that torture isn't any less bad because it's done by americans - he's not saying that what we've done is as bad as what Saddam did. Wipe the drool off your chin and give it a reread, sport.

Posted by: jpe at July 25, 2005 11:54 AM (AoyVe)

194 Just surfed in. Great site! You're doing good work, guys! Thanks http://posters.mail15.com posters

Posted by: Mirk at August 19, 2005 08:03 PM (7kgWz)

195 Great site!! Just surfed on in and stopped for longer. Think to put it in my bookmarks. http://glasses.mail15.com glasses

Posted by: Nobow at August 19, 2005 08:34 PM (7kgWz)

196 http://onlinetraining.active-community.org/idcynyaju/ chokeddiscoverthud

Posted by: wetness at August 28, 2005 10:53 PM (xaj0E)

197 http://zocor.rosegardenhome.org/je3svrbpb/ baseinchesmelted

Posted by: tract at September 03, 2005 09:02 AM (ahd8V)

198 That is ABSOLUTELY disgusting. It makes me sick to see those poor people. I think the one that was really horrible was the little boy. HE WAS A LITTLE BOY!!!

Posted by: Sierra at October 25, 2005 09:07 AM (cRFPc)

199 You can put your biased All-American, blinding patriotic views and beliefs on this issue. However torture is still torture. It quite simply defined as: Subjection to great physical or mental pain/anguish as a means of punishment or coercion. We have done this to the Iraqi people for almost 2 decades now. More over, the question that should be raised is whether or not such practice, by not only Saddam Hussein’s former regime but also by America, is viable. Amnesty International has labeled Camp X-Ray as a black hole and to be frank with you all, if the United States truly had nothing to hide why conceal the way the prisoners are being treated, let them open the doors to the world, let the world judge for themselves instead of placing this Clint Eastwood, nationalistic twist all over the media. The basest of the very war is flawed. The Coalition entered Iraq to eradicate the threat posed by the WMD and for some reason the whole purpose of the ‘’struggle’’ has changed into the search and destruction of terrorism and all its forms. Forgive me for saying this but who supplied Iraq with these weapons such as anthrax to annihilate Iran? Who trained Osama Bin Laden to tear down the Soviet Republic? The answers to these questions are: The American government did along with the big CIA. The US has gone mad attacking all these ‘’Axis of Evil’’, who for the larger part have one thing in common, they are all predominantly Muslim. What Saddam did was in no way, shape or form acceptable, but take a good look at Iraq now. It is any better now? We have truly punished the innocent people of Iraq. We have supplied their oppressor with the tools needed to rule with an iron fist in the ‘80s, we have pumped him up and then when he no longer wants to be pulled by the puppet strings, we decide to sanction them for 12 odd years and launch 2 wars against them in the space of 13 years. The blood of Iraqis is not found in Saddam’s prisons or palaces, or with the hunt of the mysteriously disappearing WMDs but on the hands of American leaders along with their 52 stars, red and white stripes.

Posted by: Undisclosed at November 05, 2005 10:14 PM (p2wnI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment