By Rauol

March 14, 2008 7:51 AM | Link to this

Folks, this is a war on terrorism, not some nation-state with armies marching to battle. I you are all touchy-feely over waterboarding, maybe you should look at the field manual of our enemies. I think you might agree that waterboarding falls a little short of beheadings. It gets really nauseating to hear the constant drum beat that our President wants to torture people, and that he takes further delight in stripping us all of our civil liberties while making up all kinds of lies about why it’s necessary to do it. If you are of that mind (deranged Bush hating), ask yourself this. What does he (Bush) have to gain by taking these tough positions and making the hard and un-popular decisions necessary to fight a new kind of war on Terror? America is such an open society with many vulnerable soft spots for terrorists to strike. I for one believe this calls for some common sense tactics to keep our citizens safe. The world changed after 9/11; and we must change too. And oh by the way, ask Al Quaida if the war in Iraq is a failure. And compare the number of US military deaths in the Bush administration to that of Clinton; not really that much different considering we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once you enter into war, you must play to win. Anything less is immoral. It is clear our enemies are in it to win. Are we?

By Savanation

March 14, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

Have these people no shame? The blatant hypocrisy is mind boggling. They say they are, Oh,soooo, Pro-Life. But they do love a nice bit of torture now and then just to keep LIFE interesting. Maybe that is why they all also voted against Healthcare for poor children. A fallback position. If they can’t have torture they can always watch children suffer. Amazing that these same people are always talking about great our military is(without ever doing anything to support our troops) but for some reason the “US Army Field Manual” guidlines and restrictions on torture are way off base. Forget waterboarding, put the torturee in a room with Jean Schmidt for four hours.

By Rich

March 14, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

To his credit, Sen. John McCain once put this debate over use of torture by the U.S. in the most clear-cut and understandable of terms; to his discredit, however, he’s also joined in rank flip-floppery, refusing recently to vote to ban waterboarding. Sen. McCain said this in 2005: “It’s not about who they are. It’s about who we are.” Of course, he was and is exactly right — it isn’t about how horrible “THEY” are; it’s about who and what WE are as a nation and a people. How sad that he, too, has sold his soul to the devil, refusing to enact a legislative ban on our use of interrogation tactics that WE have prosecuted others for using (e.g., the Germans and Japanese during World War II). He knows better. Any moral person knows better. We, as a nation, should all know better — yet we are led by pseudo-moral, quasi-religious people who cannot give up even the possibility of using such inhumane, revolting and (almost) universally rejected techniques as waterboarding. How unspeakably low we have sunk as a country.

By Rich

March 14, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

Modest proposal — there’s at least one phrase that needs to be banned from political discourse, now and forever: “The world changed after 9/11.” No, it did NOT. Anyone who maintains it did needs to stop being lazy and explain why, if that claim is true, a standard military response to a non-military threat was appropriate, or could be expected to be effective, and why we allowed focus to shift from the real enemy (clearly based in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere) to a bogus enemy in Iraq. And in response to comments on American military deaths under Bush vs. Clinton, “Raoul” conveniently neglects several facts. One is deaths of OTHERS due to the war. There are, of course, varying estimates on excess Iraqi deaths due to the war — ranging from 400,000 to 650,000 to over 1 million, depending on who’s estimating. We can argue endlessly over the exact number, but any honest person must admit that the impact of war HAS been far worse for Iraqis than for us, and cannot be neglected. As for the lame and fact-free attempt to smear Clinton as being “not really that much different” from Bush, the numbers don’t quite bear you out. Check out the Wikipedia item “United States casualties of war” and you see that Clinton’s 3 major military actions (Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia) yielded 69 total military deaths and 162 total military wounded. Bush’s major military actions (Afghanistan, the Philippines and Iraq) have to date yielded 4469 total military deaths and 47,404 total military wounded. That is greater than a SIX THOUSAND percent increase in deaths, and greater than a TWENTY NINE THOUSAND percent increase in wounded, over Clinton’s numbers. Unless you’ve invented some sort of new math, your pathetic attempt to smear Bill Clinton fails miserably. Like Lady Macbeth, George W. Bush can’t wash the blood off his hands — the carnage in Iraq is his legacy, and the factual record cannot be denied.

By TRS

March 14, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Rauol - to answer your last question - no, some aren’t. Over all this talk about torture there were only 3 authorized water boardings and each was effective in securing information which saved American lives. Now they are defining sleep deprivation, loud music and other sorts of such things as torture. The vast majority of interregations can secure the information needed without the use of enhanced methods; but for some who are so evil it was determined more was necessary. Lets ask the American public - would you prefer a terrorist have his sleep interrupted or have to listen to some loud music or heaven forbid pour some water up his nose to get essential information to save innocent American lives or would you prefer a law which outlaws techniques which may be the only means of extracting such information so you could feel better about yourself? No one advocates brutal “middle ages” physical torture even though our enemy uses them - most would agree it is ineffective; but, proven techniques which leave the terrorist shaken but not physically harmed - I think most reasonable Americans would prefer protection. It is immoral not to protect innocent people. Tell me - have the terrorists rejected water boarding?

By Raoul

March 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

No,TRS, they haven’t. Personally, I would like to eliminate water-boarding, and replace it by forcing all captured terrorist operatives to sit and watch endless reruns of Green Acres, Beverly Hillbilly’s, and Petticoat Junction. No telling how much information would be extracted. As for Rich, boy you really took the bait. I did not attempt to smear Bill Clinton; re-read my comment. But since you gave me the opportunity, let me ask you, what, if anything, did Bill Clinton do to protect us from anything? His military policies were conducted with no purpose at all, and he chose only one response to terrorism and timed it to take the heat off his personal problems. I would just like Bush-haters like you to concede that our enemies would love to have Bill and company back so that they can go back to the good old days of terrorism without fear of showing themselves. As for your use of facts, I a bit suprised as I thought the Bush hating crowd did not consider them useful.

By Rich

March 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

I “took the bait”? Let’s all go back and ponder what you wrote, Raoul: “And compare the number of US military deaths in the Bush administration to that of Clinton; not really that much different considering we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.” I did just that — compare the numbers. Not really all that different, huh? What did I misinterpret, take out of context, or otherwise distort? Please explain further. Beyond that, I seem to recall great Republican resistance to the essentially humanitarian intervention in the former Yugoslavia during Clinton’s presidency, which ended with almost no American losses of any sort. Facts are facts. Believe what you want about Bill Clinton — most people do. And who said I was a Bush-hater, anyway? I decline that honor, because it implies irrationality — I’m just reporting the facts, and reaching the only obvious conclusion. Just as then-Sec. of State Colin Powell warned, we plunged into Iraq like the proverbial bull in the china shop, and having broken everything, now “own” it. The act of breaking an entire country, unfortunately, involved HUGE amounts of so-called “collateral damage”. Oh, how I despise that term, which simply obscures the real, human cost of a war of choice. Whether it’s 400,000 on the low end, or over one million on the high end of estimates, the cost of this war in Iraqi lives is the true legacy of those who got us into it — and I defy anyone to prove in a dispassionate, logical way how it protected us from anything that wasn’t DIRECTLY CAUSED by our Iraq intervention. I for one was 100% in favor of striking Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks — simply because there was absolute proof it was the poisonous source of al Qaeda, unlike Iraq — which ought to go without saying, but unfortunately escapes too many people. I’m reminded of a classic editorial cartoon that shows Uncle Sam, standing beside a beehive labeled “Iraq”, with bees swarming madly about his head. George Bush is pictured standing beside a second beehive labeled “Iran”, with a 2-by-4 board in his hand, muttering “Huh — I don’t like the looks of THIS one either!” Exactly so. I don’t hate George Bush, but I do hate what he’s done to this country and the world.

By TRS

March 15, 2008 12:11 AM | Link to this

Iraqi civilian casualities numbers are tough to pin down. It seems they vary based on political perspective. Rich - I think your low is a bit high as there is a website called Iraqi Body Count which has deathes in the 82-89,000 range. If you are counting injuries as well certainly that would be higher. If we are talking strictly about Iraq is it your position that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam? There are no accurate counts of the carnage he brought on the Iraqi people. It is estimated that in the Iran-Iraq war over 250,000 Iraqis died - virtually a whole generation when considering its population. The reason for a standard military response was that Iraq was a sovereign country with a standing Army. It was thought it had WMDs and those WMDs could end up in terrorist hands. The Clinton administration 1st created the policy of regime change followed by the multiple UN resolutions, etc.

By TRS

March 15, 2008 1:08 AM | Link to this

The civilian death numbers in Iraq seem to vary based on websites and political perspective. One I found called Iraq Body Count (ibc.com) which presented the appearance of being somewhat accurate was in the 82-89,000 range which would place Rich’s low number a bit high. The report which indicated 600,000 was more of a sampling and deemed inaccurate because in truth we really don’t know how to accurately sample the Iraqi culture. Frankly, we don’t know what the numbers are at. If you are advocating that Iraq is worse off as a fledging democracy vs Saddam’s rule I think that is a tough argument to make. No one knows the total carnage Saddam brought about on the Iraqi people. It is estimated that in the Iran/Iraq war alone 250,000 Iraqis died, not counting the death squads, gassings, Gulf War 1 - the list goes on. After Saddam his two sons would have followed him and many thought they would be worse than Saddam. Putting things into context, I don’t think many will buy into the argument that Iraq was better served under Saddam. As heart breaking as the Iraqi deaths are, they probably pale in comparison with what was come. As an aside, the last polling I saw indicated 65% of Americans believe they are better off. Raoul - it is a strange position I find myself in agreeing with Rich but I believe he speaks truth that he is not a Bush hater. There are a few on this site who are Bush haters but Rich at least has some reasoned thoughts. I also have to agree with him regarding the numbers. There is a website out there that has posted some false info regarding military casualities in the Clinton vs Bush years. The government report indicates that ALL fatalities to include accidents, illness, etc during the Clinton administration was 7500 and thru 2006 8792 under President Bush. Obviously, when troops are serving fatalities due to car accidents, etc pretty much cease but casualities of war more than make up the difference. Sorry, things did change with 9/11. First, we found out that the way we were fighting terrorism was ineffective. Up to the point of 9/11 we approached terrorism as a law enforement matter. Even though such an approach is still part of the equation it no longer was sufficient in and of itself. Iraq was a perceived threat because of perceived WMD. It was a country with a standing Army and one in which a standard military operation was needed. In other parts of the world we fight terrorism in non standard ways. If we are to defeat terrorism we cannot approach it with an either/or mentality as to how we fight it but both. Finally, the Bosnia/Serb conflict was questioned primarily because of national interest. No matter your position on Iraq no one can make the argument that the Middle East is not linked to our national interest. Considering both the terrorism and oil aspects, it most certainly is; whereas, Bosnia was primarily humanitarian and had little to do with our national interests. The concern is we would be there for a long time keeping the factions seperate. As it stands, that is true and considering we precluded genecide, I”m OK with that. The only question I would have deals with consistency on the part of the Clinton Administration. If Clinton was so keen on helping Bosnia for humanitarian reasons, why did he virtually ignore Rwanda where true genecide was occurring?

By mwm

March 15, 2008 7:27 AM | Link to this

The first casualty of war is the truth. Old quote, but still valid. It is wrong to justify torture. We look at other countries that use torture and call them evil. But, we have some conservatives that will justify torture; as long as we do it. Rendering is another tactic. That way, secret locations can be used for torture, without any laws to worry about. Blackwater; a mercenary company that can avoid laws. This war in Iraq, based upon lies, will be looked at as a human rights disaster. But, may be painted over in the history books. Like our ethnic cleansing, murder and torture of the native american population out west… Of course, back then, it was called, “Manifest Destiny”… Some warped and demented politicians claimed God ordained or accepted our actions. Our coutry has a way of justifying hate. Use propaganda and lies to motivate the population into war. Bush and his administration did just that. But, like most lies, the truth eventually comes out. And, the liars get exposed.

By mill

March 15, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this

when you slaughter someone on the battlefield, they still pose a threat to you. When you capture someone, they personally can’t threaten you. Their knowledge doesn’t make anything so. Our (US, west) claim to moral high ground is to be more humane than our enemies. if the only difference between them and us is the excuse we give to torture, we’re no better than they

By Raoul

March 15, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

It was Saddam’s insane defiance that doomed the Iraqi’s who have perished in this war. And now it is al Qaeda doing all the killing. Your reflexive defense of Bill Clinton is an insult to the facts you hold so dear; for unless you are able to use all the facts, your argument only serves as propaganda. That’s why all those who proudly claim they protested us out of Viet Nam never talk about the killing fields of Cambodia, a direct result of anti-war hysteria. Look Rich, we all hate war. I have spent a lifetime trying to understand it, particularly how America’s unique role in the world poses so many difficulties for us and our military. Like it or not, there is no other nation that is capable of drawing a line in the sand, and when we decide to fight, it must be decisive. The debate over Iraq will last a generation, and it will take that long for the results to be made clear. Bush is paying the price for the cavalier indifference to terrorism, and its subsequent rise in offensives against the US and other countries, that were invited by the blind eye of the Clinton administration. Maybe that is why Sandy Berger was so interested in stuffing classified documents from that era in his pants and stealing them from the National Archives during the 9/11 investigation. That these recurriing thefts have not become Watergate times 100 remains a real mystery. But, that really doesn’t get us to Iraq, or waterboarding,which prompted this whole dialoque. Again, it was Saddam, not GW Bush who doomed his people. As for not hating Bush, but hating what he has done to the country and world, what a ridiculous comment. It was his lot to become President during the most stridently anti-American times in history. And don’t think it is because of him; the Inauguration Ball was hardly over before 9/11.Until just recently, his policies have kept the economy sound overall, and we have blown up many terrorist plans at home and abroad without a single attack since 9/11. In fact, rarely have we seen a President follow through as he has on campaign promises. To blame him for all the world’s ills is simply unintellectual. By the way, what do you think about my ideas for torture (ie., forcing captives to watch re-runs of Green Acres until they crack)?

By TRS

March 16, 2008 12:46 AM | Link to this

Torture, as defined by Article 1 of the 1984 Convention Against Torture, is the ?cruel, inhumane, or degrading? infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime. The rub here is the word severe. In the case of enemy combatants, the Geneva Convention applies as well as the Army manuals on interregation which define proper technique and the limits. This is to insure that ultra humane treatment be rendered to enemy combatants. We are not fighting against a conventional enemy. They fight for no nation state, they target innocents, they wear no insignias and disguise themselves as civilians and are not, by definition enemy combatants. A key in this is targeting innocents. For this reason, terrorists forfeit their right to ultra human treatment as they have broken the social and civilized contract of treating each other with decency. That being said that does not mean there is carte blanche to do harm; rather, it means it becomes a judgment call. The President as well as Congress has a moral obligation to protect American lives. As Commander in Chief, this burden falls particularly on the President. He/She must make the judgment as to how many American lives may be sacrificed in order to that a terrorist’s comfort can be preserved. Put another way, how many American lives can be saved if a terrorist is made extremely uncomfortable or panic stricken?Currently, opponents of water boarding automatically assume water boarding to be torture, but that is not the case as it is still opened to debate. Water boarding does not inflict physical pain; rather, it creates a sense of panic. Does short term panic constitute the infliction of severe phyical or mental stress? With all the huffing and puffing, it is an unrefuted fact that water boarding has been used only three times. One was Abu Zubadya, an Al Quada operative. He was interrogated for weeks and was wholely uncooperative. Amazingly after 30-35 seconds of waterboarding, he provided vast amounts of high quality information, some of which led to the capture of Khalid Shiek Mohammad, the mastermind of 9/11. With his capture much was found out about Al Quada. It is thought that terrorist plans were disrputed as well as the Al Quada infrastructure. The water boarding of these extreme Islamic Terrorists required authorization and this was done only as a last resort. All three cases yielded information which led to other terrorists, interrupted their planning and most likely saved American lives. Would we be better if that information would not have been secured? Is the potential sacrifice of innocent American lives worth keeping a terrorist in his/her comfort zone? In my view, water boarding, under limited application and with tight controls, is a moral action when applied against terrorists if the end result is to save innocent lives.

By jeff

March 16, 2008 2:59 AM | Link to this

Raoul, I like the idea of torturing for freedom so much, perhaps the concept should be extended. Why not waterboard the government officials who lied America into the “war on terror” (sic) and find out what was really behind this? Oil and arms profits perhaps? Oh heck, who cares what it was, it’s really the torture that matters. If there’s a difference between America before 9/11 and now, it’s a number of people who decided to follow a moron out of fear, and now they have to keep on with the same lies, otherwise, they have to face the fact they were very, very wrong. Why does anyone believe what happens in Iraq is our business anyway? The Cold War, Viet nam, the first Iraq war - it’s all the same. What did we win? Maybe we really lost and are just about to find out? The only way we win is to get control of our corrupt government, and we aren’t going to do that killing and torturing in Iraq.

By Raoul

March 17, 2008 8:02 AM | Link to this

TRS laid the facts out for you Jeff. 3 water-boardings of al Qaeda terrorists, with positive results. Results matter. The difference between pre and post 9/11 is this: America will no longer stand for terrorism, here or anywhere else where we have national interests. I think that is a pretty simple concept to grasp, and I believe al Qaeda is getting the message. By the way, if you are wondering what we gained by winning the Cold War go to Eastern Europe. On another note, that whole ‘oil and arms profits’ was really ‘Oil for Food’, and it was members of the good old UN during the reign of Saddam that was making all the profits.

By alice

March 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

First, could TRS please stop writing books on the blogs? Nothing against your right to your opinion, just sum it up. Second, there is no victory in Iraq, only options to lose less because we are fighting an enemy that has no country. We can’t win in Iraq, but we can beat the terrorist. Third, we prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding. It is torture, period. If you want to argue that we should be able to torture to “win” a war then please go live in N Korea because we Americans are better than that. What made us so wonderful is that we win without torturing people. Those that support it are desperate and fighting a war you can’t justify. Your country has let you down and you have let yourself down so you need the hollow victory to somehow validate your actions.

By alice

March 17, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

wow! i would like to respond to the above posts by TRS and Raoul. Sorry to not separate the responses, they started to blur together. 1)the world’s hate of us wasn’t as high before 9/11. I’m not saying we were loved by everyone, but the hate went through the roof when we went to war despite popular world dissent against going to war. 2) They never had bad information to go into Iraq, they had no or “fabricated” info to base their vote on. People were scared and pissed and they trusted, ignorantly, their elected officials to not take advantage of them. 3) Waterboarding is drowning someone slowly. Drowning someone slowly is torture. I won’t comment on the loud music, etc…but drowning is torture. TRS, I am glad you can justify our use of waterboarding because the terrorist do it. Maybe we should send retarded American children to Iraq with bombs strapped to their chests, as long as it is for the right reason. 4) There were a lot of negative results to pulling out of Vietnam. There were a lot of negative results of us going into Vietnam. Like Vietnam, we shouldn’t be in Iraq to have to pull out badly. There’s pulling out badly, then there’s pulling out worse. There is no pulling out well. 5) Our economy only recently got bad, Raoul? Did you just move to Ohio? This is what is so ironic. Our economy was no better than in 2004, time has simply compounded the problem. 6) waterboarding is NEVER a moral action, period. No matter the results. TRS, you say there have been positive results, but the long term effects of torture on the reputation of the US far outweighs the positive short-term.

By TRS

March 18, 2008 12:31 AM | Link to this

Quick points to accomodate your request 1) The world doesn’t hate us - Islamic terrorists do. 2) there was enough information to convince Congress and the public in 2003. To say that the American people made their decision to support the Iraq resolution and put our troops in harm’s way because they were scared and angry is belittling and demeaning implying that they can be led around by the nose. It is saying they would send troops to war based on an emotional decision rather than a reasoned one. Info was there - it was just wrong. 3) Please point out where I justified the use of torture because terrorist’s do it? Didn’t happen in my posts. The Japanese water boarded legitimate enemy combatants who deserved ultra humane treatment. Their prosecution was appropriate. Terrorists are not enemy combatants. 4)Being in Iraq is a mute point. It makes no sense to say that timing of leaving is irrelevant. There will soon come a time, a good time, when the mission of defending Iraq will be turned over to the Iraqis. We aren’t in it to win but to complete the mission which was and always has been returning to the Iraqis a reasonably stable country - its up to them from that point forward. 5) I didn’t mention the economy - but Ohio’s economy did not reflect the entire country - it is in a state of transition which will probably take a decade and no - NAFTA didn’t ruin its economy. 6) the average time for drowning is 5 to 20 minutes. 30-35 seconds seems to be about the average time for waterboarding so it is hardly “slowly drowning”; rather, it is an expedient way of inducing panic and it has been proven to work. Please cite the name of someone who has drowned, slowly or otherwise, as a result of waterboarding? Tell me who has not been able to walk away after being waterboarded, whose limbs were broken, who was permanently harmed? The position of “never” is one which sounds good, but how moral is it really? It seems you are saying that so be viewed favorably by the world, it is better to sacrifice innocent American lives. Could be just a few, could be 3000+ as in 9/11 or heaven forbid, could be many more if a nuke or biological weapon ever makes it here - but in your way of thinking they are worth the sacrifice.

By an american

March 18, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

Just finished listening to barack hussein obama’s political speech on CNN.To me it was an attempt to sugar coat his association with certain people and at the same time solicit the support from a crosssection of society that he needs to win his campaign for president.Beware voters,pay attention to what is said by this candidate.

By alice

March 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

TRS: “Tell me - have the terrorists rejected water boarding?”, the implication seems to be that because the terrorists do not reject waterboarding, it is ok for us. Perhaps you implied something different, but I am not sure what. I never said “drowning” someone or torture did result in death, but if I stick a person’s head under water for 30 seconds, I believe that to be torture. 2) The world does not hate us, but we’re a lot less liked now then we were before the war and that is because we, right or wrong, did not feel we needed our allies’ approval to go to war. 3) Saying that we went to war for emotional reasons is not demeaning. On the contrary, it shows what a passionate country we are. We all fundamentally make all of our decisions based on emotion, not logic. Logic supports our emotions and is used to justify our decisions after we have made them. Logic plays a part, but emotion is the core ingredient. It doesn’t make us stupid, just human. 4) I do not, and could not, value our perception of the world over human life, not just American. It comes down to how we define torture. You don’t believe waterboarding is torture, so it is an easy decision for you. You accept that it is the only option. I, on the other hand, do define it as torture and I believe that there are other options. We have risen to our position in the world because we have always placed ourselves above using terrorist-tactics. It is a disservice to our character and our intelligence to say that we can’t “win” without it. An American: I watched it as well, and what it said to me was that whites need to take time to understand the black perspective as much as blacks need to understand the frustration that whites feel regarding affirmative action, etc… Racist or not, we are still divided and voters would do better to beware of bigotry in disguise as patriotism by people that think they are American but do not reflect the principals of a free society. Using a fellow American’s name to exploit fear and ignorance in people threatens the very society we are fighting to protect.

By TRS

March 18, 2008 11:50 PM | Link to this

Alice - your right, I did say that in an earlier post. My bad - I do not believe that to be a legitimate criteria. Those decisions should stand or fall on their own merit. Your right - we’ll have to agree to disagree and thats OK. My perspective of decision making differs a bit from yours. I believe we may initially react emotionally, but at some point we think it through. Thanks for a civil discussion

By Raoul

March 19, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this

Alice, when you consider the twin towers were destroyed in the heart of our financial world, and that 4 years later the largest natural disaster in US history would devastate the delta region of our country, while we were involved in 2 major military operations overseas, I think anyone who thinks clearly and contemplates reality unfiltered through the lens of mainstream media would have to say that our economy has been managed well overall. Job losses in Ohio have little to do with Administration policies past or present. I agree that we should not torture enemy combatants, but jihadist terrorism calls for a re-examination of our struggle. There is but one way to win; make the price paid for terrorism so high that it is no longer worth it. I shudder to see a future where nuclear bombs are used by someone once held in Git-mo and we could have prevented it by water boarding. There will be no point to the argument of whether we should water board or not then, and I (if alive) would take no joy in saying ‘I told you so’. American ideals are not sacrificed by the use of common sense. We have shed oceans of blood in our struggle to create a republic of self-governed, free and equal people, and when pressed to fight against those that would deprive us of it, we made the sacrifices necessary to win. If all that sacrifice and all that bloodshed were worth it to keep our sovereignty and our beautiful consititution ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’, then I say let’s keep up the debate with the ultimate goal to preserve our American heritage, ‘the last, best hope for mankind’. Thanks to all for your participation in this debate.

By mike

March 23, 2008 5:37 PM | Link to this

The USA has an amendment in the Bill of Rights against cruel and inhumane punishment. For many decades the USA has criticized other govt for torturing their citizens. In fact the Bush govt made these claims in its attack and occupation of Iraqi. An now…OUR Govt is into torture, waterboarding, secret detainees and keeping folks without trial (5 years) in a Devil’s Island (G Bay)environment beyond the preview of any court or law. The USA signed on to the Geneva Convention after WW2…which prohibits torture. If our govt wants to torture folks WITHDRAWAL from the Geneva Convention and remove the law from the Bill of Rights and be honest about who we are.

By jeff

March 23, 2008 8:36 PM | Link to this

Raoul, The assumption that your government is interested in protecting you through torture is just as much a falacy as the war in Iraq had anything to do with al Quaeda. You assume we are winning becuase we torture? Let’s review, I believe one of al Quaeda’s primary goals was to bring America down finacially. Hey wasn’t that the same way the Afgans got rid of the Russians, bleeding them slowly and as a result or that and our insane Regan arms build up the Russians came to their senses and withdrew from the cold war. 9/11 happened becuase al Quaeda wanted us in Afganistan to do the same thing to us as was done to the Russians, but bonus, our brainac Republicans got us into Iraq as well! The only thing we’ve won so far is the potential to be defeated just as soundly as the Russians. Torture will be one of the reasons we lose, not win.

By Ben

April 1, 2008 10:04 PM | Link to this

April 1, 2008 and its not a Fools Day Joke, but just another day in Washington D.C. and as in the past, the Executives of the BIG 5 Oil companies are hauled in for a special hearing, headed by Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a long-time oil industry critic and chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. According to a report filled today by reporter, Chris Baltimore from Reuters and available on Yahoo.com he writes among others ?Democrats were eager to blame rising oil prices on the executives, though House Republican leader John Boehner mocked the hearing as a “politically motivated, made for TV event.? Ok, let?s take a closer look at House Republican leader, Mr. John Boehner financial ties to the Oil Industry and his motivation for such statement. According to the Washington based watch dog group Open Secret (Opensecret.org) Mr. Boehner received the following Political Financial Contribution from individuals in the Energy Sector and Energy Pac Funds since his political career in 1989, a total of $567,432. In the last two election years alone Rep. Boehner received: 2006 Election Year: Total Raised $3,200,084 where $179,000 was from the Energy and Natural Resource sector in PAC contributions and specifically from Oil and Gas, $65,000 in PAC Money 2008 Election Year to date: Total Raised $2,004,934 and as of today $65,000 is from the Energy and Natural Resource sector in PAC contributions and specifically from Oil and Gas, $12,250 so far. Well, The Gentleman from Ohio, Rep. John Boehner (R) may think that today?s hearing was ?made for TV event? but he is for sure the paid commercial interruption that does not give the People of America a fair break at the pump, while Big Oil is heading for another record profit year.