Article

2008-03-09 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-03-09 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 Way to go Bush... You are right as usual, of course you do know that americans Around the world will be fair game for water-boarding as well... Bush is de-facto rewriting the rules of war, which is fine, but when it's a young american stretched out on a table, the terrorists will take comfort in knowing that torture is now approved by the USA...

Posted by mac-d-only 2008-03-09 00:18|| 2008-03-09 00:18|| Front Page Top

#2 Turns out, mac-d, that Americans around the world have no protection with or without this veto.

Saddam was pretty vicious with the few Americans who were taken prisoner in the Iraq and Gulf wars. al-Qaeda terrorists, the few times they've grabbed an American solider, have been vicious in ways you and I hope never to see or experience.

So tell me: if Bush were to ban waterboarding, do you really think al Qaeda would say, "gee, maybe he's right, maybe we shouldn't torture people ourselves?" I hope you'll come back and answer that one.

Americans around the world have always been, and always will be, 'fair game' (as you say) for the thugs, brutes and terrorists. Americans will never be treated well. Go back in history. Check out what happened in Korea. Vietnam (you may have heard of one such prisoner, he survived and is running for President today).

We're always 'fair game'.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-03-09 00:29|| 2008-03-09 00:29|| Front Page Top

#3 The waterboarding bogeyman is being used to obscure the real purpose of the bill, which was to strip the military of some of its decision-making authority and turn that over to Congress.

Good veto of a bad bill.

I s'pect the World Workers Party fanboyz and Soros zombies have waterboarded each other more often than the US military has on our sworn enemies.

Posted by Seafarious 2008-03-09 00:43|| 2008-03-09 00:43|| Front Page Top

#4 Dr. Steve, you are right as usual. Let me just add that the last opponents we faced in war who observed the Geneva Convention to the letter were, I'm fairly certain, Imperial Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy generally observed the Conventions with respect to the western allies, but not with respect to their brother socialists the Russians or with respect to the Resistance. Imperial Japan was not signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

Mac-d, you do know, don't you, that the Geneva Conventions are enforced by reciprocity? If your opponents do not observe them, you are released from their obligations and have an absolute right under the Conventions to shoot the enemy prisoners in reprisal.

Posted by Mike 2008-03-09 00:47|| 2008-03-09 00:47|| Front Page Top

#5 And if we followed the Geneva Conventions, all of the hard boyz at Gitmo would have faced a firing squad long ago. The GC allows an army to execute illegal combatants who are caught out of uniform, hiding among civilians, and/or not under control of a national authority.

Posted by Rambler in California">Rambler in California 2008-03-09 01:15|| 2008-03-09 01:15|| Front Page Top

#6 The US needs to strictly observe the Geneva Convention. Field trials and executions will give the islamists an incentive to follow the western rules of war or we save a fortune in food and man hours. Either is good.

Posted by ed 2008-03-09 01:22|| 2008-03-09 01:22|| Front Page Top

#7 mac-d:

Choose your poison:

1) Ten waterboardings

or

2) One Al Qaeda interrogation session.

Would you allow soldiers to die rather than allow some suspicious guy "suffer" through a waterboarding session? A simple yes or no answer would be fine. We can interpret the rest, thank you very much.

the terrorists will take comfort in knowing that torture is now approved by the USA

What's your moot point? Do you honestly think terrorists give a $hit?

Posted by gorb 2008-03-09 03:10|| 2008-03-09 03:10|| Front Page Top

#8 mac-d = Gibbering Liberal that has never read the GC, but loves to invoke its name as some sort of Holy Grail.

Posted by Glomort Smith8758 2008-03-09 03:17|| 2008-03-09 03:17|| Front Page Top

#9 Way to go Bush...

Ah, I see the short bus from Toronto has arrived.

Posted by Pappy 2008-03-09 11:46|| 2008-03-09 11:46|| Front Page Top

#10 I'm glad he vetoed this stupid bill. Waterboard the shit out of them or give'm starbux & subway. Whatever works methinx. I have no illusion what the goat lovers would do to me if I was captured. They don't follow geneva, never have and never will. All they respect is the iron fist. mac-d is typical of the deluded western thought that muslims & especially the terrornutz see the world through the same prism we do.

Posted by Phort Barnsmell7838 aka Broadhead6 2008-03-09 13:04|| 2008-03-09 13:04|| Front Page Top

#11 And departed. He didn't stay long. Sigh. They never do.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-03-09 13:12|| 2008-03-09 13:12|| Front Page Top

#12 To Steve #2... The guy you are referring to - greased his way out of his situation. It's nice when you got money and connections, you can buy your way out of torture. The rest of our not so fortunate sons just get it up the ass - and the worst part is Bush is encouraging it... Do you remember the "bring em on" comment, we know what that encouraged - more US body bags. It's easy for him to sit back and veto bills when a) he is an idiot and b) does not give a rats ass about the troops he puts in harms way!!!

Posted by mac-d-only 2008-03-09 14:33|| 2008-03-09 14:33|| Front Page Top

#13 greased his way out? You cowardly piece of anonymous shit. Do you even bother to know history or is it just ~~masturbating~~ trolling from Mama's basement?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-09 14:38|| 2008-03-09 14:38|| Front Page Top

#14 I'd guess our troll is ignorant by choice and most willful about being morally repugnant, Frank.

Posted by lotp 2008-03-09 14:40|| 2008-03-09 14:40|| Front Page Top

#15 Ya know, sometimes it just amazes me that some folks have so little in the brain department it's astounding they can breathe.

Posted by Bobby 2008-03-09 14:52|| 2008-03-09 14:52|| Front Page Top

#16 "Waterboard the shit out of them or give'm starbux"

And the difference being?

Posted by Elmereth Dingle3003 2008-03-09 15:39|| 2008-03-09 15:39|| Front Page Top

#17 Mac-d:

1) why don't you explain exactly what you mean by 'greased his way out' of his situation? Please be specific.

2) you didn't answer my first question to you, so I pose it again: if Bush were to ban waterboarding, do you really think al Qaeda would say, "gee, maybe he's right, maybe we shouldn't torture people ourselves?"

3) George Bush cares far more about the troops then you and your progressive friends, and I have plenty of evidence to back that up, starting with the troops themselves. You might ask them.

Sure do you hope you come back. And answer the questions.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-03-09 15:47|| 2008-03-09 15:47|| Front Page Top

#18 It's easy for him to sit back and veto bills when a) he is an idiot and b) does not give a rats ass about the troops he puts in harms way!!!

You dare to pretend that YOU CARE SHITHEAD!

Posted by RD">RD 2008-03-09 16:00|| 2008-03-09 16:00|| Front Page Top

#19 He's a 'spray and pray' troll. He comes, he leaves a trolley comment, and he leaves. I'm surprised he came back for a 2nd comment, and I'll be even more surprised if he comes back for a 3rd.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-03-09 17:10|| 2008-03-09 17:10|| Front Page Top

#20 I don't know a lot of folks involved in this war, but my daughter does. At least a dozen of her classmates joined the military after graduation. At least five of them have served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Most of them have a very high opinion of President Bush, and a VERY LOW opinion of all the Democrats and quite a few of the Republicans in Congress. Most want to go back, and all of them want to WIN. Congress needs to quit trying to force defeat upon the US and its military. If they don't, there's a growing possibility that both the military and quite a few of the US citizens will do something about it. Some of what they do may be violent.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-03-09 17:32|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-03-09 17:32|| Front Page Top

#21 A little more for Mac-D:

Since you believe that waterboarding equates to torture, why don't you tell us the maximum degree of harsh treatment you'd allow the CIA in questioning a known or suspected terrorist?

For example, is sensory deprivation torture? How about standing for a long period of time? A major change in room temperature? The use of 'good-cop/bad-cop' interrogation?

Because, wherever you personally draw the line, I guarantee you that someone to your left will accuse you of aiding and abetting torture.

And if you reject all harsh treatment, how exactly do you propose to interrogate a known or suspected terrorist? What if that person has time-limited information on an event that will kill many people? How harsh will you be then?

You can come to Rantburg and toss off liberal-progressive bon-mots, and think you've done something special. All the while we'll acknowledge that you're just a wanker.

Or you could try and debate the issue seriously.

Care to try?

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-03-09 17:35|| 2008-03-09 17:35|| Front Page Top

#22 Not to disagree, OP...and yet, there do seem to be military types that are Democrats. Maybe they hated their service and the military???

Posted by Bobby 2008-03-09 17:35|| 2008-03-09 17:35|| Front Page Top

#23 Steve! You're not playing fair! He'll never come back!

common sense and logic....

Posted by Bobby 2008-03-09 17:37|| 2008-03-09 17:37|| Front Page Top

#24 The US needs to strictly observe the Geneva Convention.

Keep in mind the purpose of the Geneva Conventions are not to terrorists (as Congress and the Democrats would have it) but to protect Civilians (that means noncombatants and not combatants who hide behind or among non-combatants).

Among other things it requires all combatants to wear an identifying uniform or badge which clearly identifies them as combatants. Prohibits them from using schools, and mosques as firing platforms. And from using civilians as cover. To violate this is to be an 'illegal combatant' and subject to summary execution in the field. - That's the stick.

Also among the GC is fair treatment of prisoners, prohibition of torture (real torture that is which some might argue waterboarding isn't). - Thats the carrot.

But you see the Carrot and Stick are related. The carrot only applies to legal combatants and the stick (non-protection and summary execution) apply to illegal combatants.

Al-Q, Hamas, Hizbollah, and other by their own actions (which they choose, of their own free will, to follow) are ILLEGAL COMBATANTS - and should get the stick. Hamas uses suicide bombers and fires from schools , hospitals, and mosques, and hides among civilians as a matter of course. Not to mention their deliberate targeting of Civilians for murder.

I would say we *must* apply the stick - we must start having field trials and summary executions of illegal combatants. Why - because China, Iran, and Russia are all watching. If we simply give 'protected' status to illegal combatants then what incentive do they have to follow the GC and follow the 'carrot' in relation to our men taken prisoner in some future conflict? After all we have shown we will give the 'carrot' to everyone regardless of status. By not applying the stick (and liberally) when it is warranted we guarantee that our men will be in even more danger when captured in the future.

Posted by CrazyFool 2008-03-09 18:26|| 2008-03-09 18:26|| Front Page Top

#25 Hey Steve # 17...

1. The "Swift-Boat Captins for truth" are coming out of the woodwork for john McCain - http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com

There and many more sites that are coming out weekly that are questioning how McCain went from POW - to VIP in Vietnam.

Anyways, I don't personally like him but I will reserve judgement until all the "swiftboat captins" have had their chance to vett him out...

2. You got me... America can not and should not be held to a higher standard than terrorists... Score one for you Steve!!!

3. You are mistaken, I am not progressive at all... More conservative that all of you - I Just can't stand lies. Why won't the US gov just admit that Iraq is about OIL... There is nothing wrong with saying so. If OIL was the goal of the mission than America could safely say it winning!!! Hopefully you know that in order to win a war you need to have an objective for defining the outcome??? "Until the job is done" is a pretty week objective for winning a war, but hey, its not me that got reeled in on that line of reasoning, I will leave that to you to answer...

On the Afgan side of things I thought the mission was to kill Bin laden... Why has the most advanced military in the world not killed him yet. Maybe the US needs the help of the IDF who was able to target and kill Sheikh Ahmad Yassin in his friggen wheelchair... Now that was impressive...

Now before you all gang up on me again... I don't have more time for this... I just wanted to keep Steve happy... I will see you on a new subject some other day :)

Posted by mac-d-only 2008-03-09 18:31|| 2008-03-09 18:31|| Front Page Top

#26 "more conservative than all of you - I just can't stand lies"
Mac-d-only is either an idiot, an Islamist, or a Democratic politician. Or even two or more of the above. That's the only way he can pile one lie right on top of the next and think he's fooling anybody here. You guys are wasting your time.

Posted by Darrell 2008-03-09 18:51|| 2008-03-09 18:51|| Front Page Top

#27 mac-d-only is Canadian. That implies a special sort of morality.

I will see you on a new subject some other day :)

No, you won't.

Posted by Pappy 2008-03-09 20:04|| 2008-03-09 20:04|| Front Page Top

#28 My thoughts, in no particular order:

o If I recall correctly, about 25% of the troops vote Democrat, for various reasons. They are as entitled to their opinion on the matter as we civilians are. Probably a similar percentage loathe President Bush, or disagree about us fighting in Iran, or Afghanistan, or the War on Terror altogether. The categories likely being overlapping sets rather than identical -- Mr. Wife doesn't like Bush because he reads him as a frat boy, not quite the in-group at our Buffalo, NY university... but he voted for him twice, nonetheless.

o We waterboard. Al Qaeda and the other jihadi groups cut off heads with blunt swords, then post the video on YouTube or some similar site for their fellow believers to masturbate to while dreaming of similar greatness. Waterboarding is actually pretend torture, as no actual physical or mental harm is done (getting upset and panicking does not constitute harm, I'm afraid) and it only lasts a few minutes. In contrast to cutting off someone's head, where the damage appears to my untutored eye to be permanent.

o Mr. mac-d-only may well be a hard conservative, possibly even an Libertarian. There are as many idiots on the right as there are on the left, politics being no guarantor of intelligence. There are American-style Libertarians (and even libertarians) up in Canada as well, I'm sure.

o Iraq is only about oil in the sense that Saddam Hussein attempted to wrest control of the critical percentage of Middle Eastern oil in order to control the West -- hence his conquest of Kuwait, intended to be the step that enabled him to conquer Saudi Arabia, which would have given him control of about 3/4ths of Middle Eastern petroleum production. This would not have effected the U.S. immediately, as our main suppliers are Canada and Mexico. Venezuela used to be our #3, but they've been having problems these last few years. No, Iraq, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, are the key suppliers for Japan and Europe, whose economies would crash into a 1929-style depression should those three countries stop supplying them oil.

So in the sense that preventing Saddam Hussein from destroying Europe and Japan means the invasion was about oil... sure. But not because the U.S. would have, or did, get cheap Iraqi oil as a result.

o Afghanistan was never about "getting" Osama bin Laden. That would be like saying World War II was about "getting" Hitler and Togo. Sure, that might work conceptually for a seven-year old, but I rather doubt Mr. mac-d-only is quite that young or simple-minded. Afghanistan was about denying Al Qaeda the safe haven they had been enjoying there, protected by the Taliban who then ruled much of the country.

o The Geneva Conventions (there are a number of them, and the U.S. has not signed off on all of them) were written to protect civilians from soldiers and armies. Soldiers being defined as acknowledged and uniformed employees of one national government in service to wage declared war on other countries. Anyone who does not wear a uniform, is not the acknowledged employee of a government for the purpose of waging open war, or who hides amongst or attacks in any way civilians, is explicitly not given Geneva Conventions protections, and in fact is supposed to be killed when caught, without conditions. A properly constituted court martial with firing squad is not required -- a pistol to the temple will do nicely.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-03-09 21:02|| 2008-03-09 21:02|| Front Page Top

#29 Excellent points, tw. As usual.

Posted by Darrell 2008-03-09 21:59|| 2008-03-09 21:59|| Front Page Top

#30 You flatter me inordinately, Darrell dear. I've done my best to learn from the inestimable Rantburg U professoriate.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-03-09 22:20|| 2008-03-09 22:20|| Front Page Top

#31 It's threads like this that keep me coming back. Education and Entertainment all in one place. And the fresh troll meat is a bonus.

Sadly though, it seems the trolls of late are not what they used to be.

Posted by Grease Dark Lord of the Algonquins9226 2008-03-09 22:41|| 2008-03-09 22:41|| Front Page Top

#32 Just a quick note here. My comments were about a small handful of people - the ones my daughter knows who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can't say they're reflective of all the military, but on the other hand, they do seem to have quite a bit in common about the war, where there wasn't much in common between them before they enlisted. TW's comments are, as always, down-to-earth and thoughtful. There's much here, both in her comments and in the comments of others, to reflect upon and ponder. Mac-d cannot be a regular reader, or he(she?) wouldn't make such poorly-supported statements. A regular reader would KNOW they'd find themselves disected under a microscope, and found wanted.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-03-09 23:12|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-03-09 23:12|| Front Page Top

23:48 trailing wife
23:16 Old Patriot
23:12 Old Patriot
23:11 JosephMendiola
23:04 ed
23:03 ed
23:02 Mike
22:58 ed
22:54 SteveS
22:41 Grease Dark Lord of the Algonquins9226
22:26 gromky
22:20 trailing wife
22:09 Frank G
21:59 Darrell
21:50 trailing wife
21:48 CrazyFool
21:43 trailing wife
21:33 trailing wife
21:31 mom
21:14 trailing wife
21:11 mom
21:02 trailing wife
20:34 Seafarious
20:25 Frank G