WEll, since we can't use waterboarding or any other form of extreme interrogation measures to get the info about the attacks out of the terrorists, I wouldn't doubt that there will be another terrorist attack on US soil within the next 4 years. And what better a target than a prison holding their buddy's? and you completely ignored the other part of my post, just like I thought you would. You can't stand being wrong. And you ignore it when you are proven wrong. It's ok though, I don't blame you. No need to point out your embarrassment to everyone here .
I would bet on some form of terrorism happening in the US too. Something like a state-sponsored 'cyber-attack' to push through the internet censorship bill, or maybe a fake militia incident to push through gun bans. After all, the end justifies the means for these guys...
So's water boarding. Does not make it right though. Actually I said "no you do not". I have been trying to use contractions less often. You never had me on ignore. You get off seeing me post. Why do you think NPT follows me around DP all day long? Same reason. You still do not know what a terrorist is. And I am not referring to the dictionary definition.
Waterboarding is not "extreme interrogation" - it is torture. And almost as importantly (and more so to those with a single minded view of the world) it is entirely useless for gathering real information. Waterboarding has never been proven to be a good source for real information, on the other hand - it's been proven time and time again to be a good way to get FALSE information (because people will say anything to make it stop.) As Jesse Ventura said - he could get Dick Cheney to confess to the Sharon Tate murders ... I don't know what bugs me more - the fact that neo cons like yourself refuse to accept that waterboarding is torture and that the Bush/Cheney admin is guilty of war crimes or that the you refuse to accept the fact that waterboarding is a very inefficient way to gather intelligence because of the fact that so much FALSE info is obtained using the methods. Furthermore, in the scenario where there is a terrorist attack in the next 4 years (which is certainly possible - I don't think there's any way to be assured that all terrorist attacks will be stopped) then it is certainly a ridiculous conclusion to jump to that this happened because we "didn't waterboard enough" - that's an infuriating thing to imply. And if you want to blame any future terrorist attack on the Obama admins policies then you need to blame 9/11 on the Bush/Cheney policies (and I think there's a LOT of reason to do just that as the Bush/Cheney admin ignored the warnings about Al Qaeda.) Cheney/Bush: 9/11 Happened On Your Watch.
Who said I don't partially blame them? Although, I think there comes a point where you can only do so much. Those that would sacrifice freedom for safety don't deserve either. I'm glad it bugs you that I don't accept waterboarding as torture. Because it bugs me that you actually think the government is the solution to everything. And as with any form of interrogation, from sitting there and talking to taking something and driving pins underneath the finger/toe nails of someone slowly. People will lie. However, people also tell the truth. Different techniques work differantly with differant people.
Wait, how do we know these people in Guantanamo are terrorists? Assumptions aside, do we have any solid proof? Then again, talking about gitmo is nothing. The Western governments have murderous prisons in Eastern Europe. We should have these closed first, or at least demand complete transparency: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html
Arbortion is a form of infanticide. The left cares more for the well being of terrorits than children. The funny thing is that the terrorits at Gitmo have laptops, movies, satellite TV and fast food all in the warm climate of sunny Cuba.
It must be fun to watch movies and use computers between the torture sessions. They can do some research on long term effects of torture on the Internet, that is if they can type with broken fingers. It is hard to decide if the neo-cons are so stupid that they really believe these things or they are so stupid to think that they can fool everyone else with this BS.
It is a case that worth to be researched, but I think both, they start by thinking they can fool everyone else with this BS, and they end believing it themselves, and everyone else who does not believe this BS is stupid
Well, I think you are only half right. Under Bush, there was torture, broken fingers, sodomy, and all types of malfeasance. Under Obama, these people are treated properly with three square meals a day, internet access, etc.
You keep telling yourself that. All that has changed is they have gotten smarter and just keep everything quiet.
You have it wrong. Words, including murder, have specific meanings. All killings are not murder. By your silly definition every member of the military who kills someone is a murderer. Please don't tell me you subscribe to that logic. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. So yes, so long as abortion is legal, it is not murder. It may very well be the killing of another human being, but the word murder is simply not applicable to killings that are legal.
Don't forget that Slavery in the US was legal. People helped slaves escape in an effort known as the Underground Railroad. John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave, /| John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave, But his soul goes marching on. Chorus: Glory, glory, hallelujah, /| Glory, glory, hallelujah, His soul goes marching on. He's gone to be a soldier in the Army of the Lord, /| He's gone to be a soldier in the Army of the Lord, His soul goes marching on. Chorus: John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back, / John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back, His soul goes marching on. Chorus: John Brown died that the slaves might be free, / John Brown died that the slaves might be free, His soul goes marching on. Chorus: The stars above in Heaven now are looking kindly down, / The stars above in Heaven now are looking kindly down, His soul goes marching on. Written: 1861 (The song originated with soldiers of the Massachusetts 12th Regiment and soon spread to become the most popular anthem of Union soldiers during the Civil War.
Isn't POW status given only to soldiers caught fighting in uniform for their country? The people we caught on the battle field were not wearing uniforms and few or any of them where from Afghanistan. We are not in war with Yemen but we caught terrorist in Afghanistan that are from Yemen, so the question is do they get released because we are not in war with Yemen? We didn't release many terrorist but the ones that we did release 1 in 7 return to the battle field. In WWII any German solider caught fighting out of uniform who later tried to surrender was shot dead on the spot. I don't see why that policy can't apply to Al-Qeada.
They must openly wage war, whether in or out of uniform, according to the Geneva Conventions. They do not openly wage war. They hide amongst the civilians. They take pot shots. The ones that are captured generally go to the prisons scattered about Iraq. The ones that go to Gitmo are generally the ones that have had all the intelligence already gathered from them. Take it from someone who worked there and was part of a small group of people selected to guard teh CIA's portion of the compound. Torture does not happen there. That is their last stop.
Geneva Convention A prisoner of war (POW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict. The laws apply from the moment a prisoner is captured until he is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners, and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable). Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. Guerrilla (also called a partisan) is a term borrowed from Spanish (from "guerra" meaning war) used to describe small combat groups. Guerrilla warfare operates with small, mobile and flexible combat groups called cells, without a front line. Guerrilla warfare is one of the oldest forms of asymmetric warfare. Primary contributors to modern theories of guerrilla war include Mao Zedong and Che Guevara. While "asymmetric warfare" is the military term for guerrilla tactics, it is often referred to in the pejorative as "terrorism." Guerrillas are often characterised as terrorists by their opponents. Guerrillas are in danger of not being recognized as combatants because they may not wear a uniform, (to mingle with the local population), or their uniform and distinctive emblems my not be recognised as such by their opponents. Article 44, sections 3 and 4 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, "relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts", does recognise combatants who, due to the nature of the conflict, do not wear uniforms as long as they carry their weapons openly during military operations. This gives non-uniformed guerrillas lawful combatant status against countries that have ratified this convention. hostlonestar is as usual wrong, they do not need to openly wage war since this is not the nature of Guerrilla warfare, they only need to openly carry their weapon.