The Beat

Pelosi and Torture

posted by John Nichols on 12/10/2007 @ 02:36am

That House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been a disappointing leader for House Democrats, few serious observers of the congressional condition will deny. But, now, she appears to be something more troubling: a serious hindrance to the fight against the use of crudest and most objectionable torture techniques.

Democrats and Republicans with a conscience have gotten a good deal of traction in recent months in their battle to identify the use by U.S. interrogators of waterboarding – a technique that simulates drowning in order to cause extreme mental distress to prisoners -- as what it is: torture. Arizona Senator John McCain, a GOP presidential contender, has been particularly powerful in his denunciations of this barbarous endeavor. And Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, and key members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have effectively pressed the issue on a number of fronts.

Now, however, comes the news that Pelosi knew as early as 2002 that the U.S. was using waterboarding and other torture techniques and, far from objecting, appears to have cheered the tactics on.

The Washington Post reports that Pelosi, who was then a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, was were informed by CIA officials at a secret briefing in September 2002, that waterboarding and other forms of torture were being used on suspected al-Queda operatives. That's bad. Even worse is the revelation that Pelosi was apparently supportive of the initiative.

According to the news reports, Pelosi has no complaint about waterboarding during a closed-door session she attended with Florida Congressman Porter Goss, a Republican who would go on to head the Central Intelligence Agency, Kansas Republican Senator Pat Roberts and Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham.

"The reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement," recalls Goss.

How encouraging? It is reported that two of the legislators demanded to know if waterboarding and other methods that were being employed "were tough enough" forms of torture to produced the desired levels of mental anguish to force information from suspects who, under the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution, cannot be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.

Was Pelosi one of the "tough-enough" cheerleaders for waterboarding? That is not clear, as the speaker has refused to comment directly regarding her knowledge of torture techniques and encouragement of their use. Another member of the House who is closely allied wit Pelosi did tell the Post, however, that the California Democrat attended the session, recalled that waterboarding was discussed, and "did not object" at the time to that particular torture technique.

If this is the case, Pelosi has provided aid and comfort to the Bush administration's efforts to deviate not just from the standards set by international agreements regarding war crimes but from the provision of the Bill of Rights that establishes basic requirements with regard to the treatment of prisoners who in the custody of the United States.

Those deviations are precisely the sort of impeachable offenses that Pelosi has said are "off the table." Her association with the administration on the matter of torture necessarily calls into question the speaker's credibility on questions of how and when to hold the administration to account. It also begs a more mundane political question: At a point when Republicans like John McCain are earning points with their forthright stances against waterboarding, isn't the credibility and the potential effectiveness of the House Democratic Caucus as an honest player in the debate profoundly harmed by the involvement of its leader in behind-the-scenes meetings that by all accounts encouraged the use of that technique?

Comments (284)

  1. Is there any way ordinary citizens can get motions tabled for impeachment of the Speaker?

    Posted by oneworld at 12/10/2007 @ 02:12am

  2. As a point of reference, here's an early example of the use of waterboarding by the U.S. in the Phillippines during the Spanish-American War:

    To produce "a demoralized and obedient population" in Batangas, General Franklin Bell ordered the destruction of "humans, crops, food stores, domestic animals, houses and boats." He became known as the "butcher" of Batangas. General Jacob Smith, who had been wounded fighting at Wounded Knee, said his overseas campaigns were "worse than fighting Indians." He promised to turn Samar province into a "howling wilderness." Smith defined the enemy as anyone "ten years and up" and issued these instructions to Marine Commander Tony Waller: "I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me." He became known as "Howling Jake" Smith.

    The "water cure" was probably first instituted when U.S. forces encountered local resistance. Professor Miller states that General Frederick Funston in 1901 may have used it to capture the Filipino General Emilio Aguinaldo. A New York World article described the "water cure" as forcing "water with handfuls of salt thrown in to make it more efficacious, is forced down the throats of patients until their bodies become distended to the point of bursting . . .." This may have been only one on the versions used.

    If you can handle more, click .

    Who are we, anyway?

    Damn.

    I hope we snap out of this stupor.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 02:43am

  3. She is a LARGE dissapointment. We could all call Howard Dean's office and tell him the party gets no donations until she and Reid step aside. Wait a second, we don't mater because most of their money is not coming from the people. We are screwed!

    Posted by insanelayne at 12/10/2007 @ 03:31am

  4. but let's not get too down.

    make your travel plans!

    53 place to go in '08! [tinyurl.com].

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 04:21am

  5. is this how it ends?

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 04:43am

  6. Interesting, America invented torture. Not the Chinese. Not the Egyptians. Not the Japanese. Not the Russians. I find the Nation to be a parallel universe to mine. I live in the real world and you folks live in some Berkely Student Union, raging against THE MAN. I would torture any man for the right reason, and so would you.

    Posted by Dagger at 12/10/2007 @ 06:35am

  7. Interesting, America invented torture. Not the Chinese. Not the Egyptians. Not the Japanese. Not the Russians. I find the Nation to be a parallel universe to mine. I live in the real world and you folks live in some Berkely Student Union, raging against THE MAN. I would torture any man for the right reason, and so would you.

    Posted by DAGGER 12/10/2007 @ 06:35am

    America invented torture? Where did you read that? No, obviously America did not invent torture. American governments, however, have always loved the use of torture - not least because they're just so damned good at torturing people - and they have passed their extensive knowledge on the subject on to generations of Latin-American juntas. Torture is as American as apple pie.

    Torture for the right reason? As opposed to the wrong reason...? No, I would never torture anyone, because in my book there isn't any right reason for doing so.

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 12/10/2007 @ 07:58am

  8. Come on now -- you know the drill. The DEMS are just too busy with plans for the 2008 elections to deal with impeachable offenses and trashing of constitutional rights. Pelosi is representative of Big Party Dems -- and this party doesn't mind lying to you one little bit to get your vote. We should all remember the lies of 2006 when we go the polls in 2008.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/10/2007 @ 08:22am

  9. No, Mr. "Dagger," I would not torture anyone for any reason. I might kill someone for the right reason or even the wrong reason, but I am neither cruel enough to enjoy torture nor ignorant enough to imagine that it produces true confessions. Ergo, I am not ignorant enough to imagine that there is any "good" reason whatsoever to commit torture.

    Nor do I draw from the excellent and informative posting of "B_Kool_66" the completely erroneous inference that anybody on this thread believes that "America" (I presume you mean these United States?) invented torture. According to "B_Kool_66's" sources, a few enterprising US-Americans invented a few new techniques, long before there was a "War on Terror." That is all, but that is enough to demonstrate that the US-American government's approval of torture for imperialist reasons is already a century-old tradition. I believe this is the point that "B_Kool" was trying to make.

    There is a huge amount of evidence to prove that torture does not produce true confessions. Look up the term "witch trials" and see what you get. Unless you believe that back in the 1600s, tens of thousands of mostly poor women rode around on broomsticks, had sex with Satan, and cast evil spells on their neighbors, you have to conclude that the torture that prosecutors used in the witch trials did not contribute any positive knowledge to any criminal investigation -- indeed, that most of the "information" it coerced was pure superstitious bunk.

    This is why our law courts take a dim view of coerced testimony -- as they should. This is why our Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment. The Founding Fathers actually had some memory of the witch trials, which had been common practice not long before their time.

    But what can we say of US-Americans' knowledge of history today? What can we say of Nancy Pelosi's surfing on a wave of popular ignorance? What must the Japanese and the Europeans think of us, now? Their attitude toward torture is generally "Been there, done that, thank goodness we know better now." But they must be worried that in the USA, an appalling number of people seem to want to drag the world's political order back to the "good old" seventeenth century.

    Thirty-Years' War, anyone? How about absolute monarchy?

    Posted by JakobFabian at 12/10/2007 @ 08:30am

  10. Pelosi certainly has conflicts, and borders on worthless.

    But we should be watching Jane Harman very closely. Her AIPAC ties and recent sponsorship of "thought crimes" legislation bring her loyalties very much into question.

    It would be the height of foolishness to assume that the bad guys were all Republicans.

    Peace

    Posted by drhammer at 12/10/2007 @ 08:52am

  11. Posted by DAGGER 12/10/2007 @ 06:35am:

    "I would torture any man for the right reason,..."

    This is just your basic testosterone-poisoned display of keyboard courage.

    "...and so would you."

    And this projection onto an anonymous crowd is just stupid.

    Posted by drhammer at 12/10/2007 @ 09:06am

  12. "According to the news reports, Pelosi has no complaint about waterboarding during a closed-door session she attended with Florida Congressman Porter Goss, a Republican who would go on to head the Central Intelligence Agency, Kansas Republican Senator Pat Roberts and Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham. "The reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement," recalls Goss."

    Any of the Impeachment fans want to know the problem?...it's called "accessory after the fact".

    Pelosi can't impeach Bush and/or Cheney for torturing people...if she knew about it and possibly even ENCOURAGED it. Once that came out publically (more than here), the bills of impeachment would die in the US House, on the threat by Bush that he'd drag Pelosi to the witness stand at the US Senate trial...

    as a DEFENSE witness.

    According to this, Mr Nichols...impeachment was dead ...FIVE YEARS AGO!

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 09:21am

  13. Posted by DAGGER 12/10/2007 @ 06:35am

    It's called "chum", guys. Same crap we get from FRANKSHITZ. Don't let it get you to the surface, or Quint will put two barrels in ya!

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 09:22am

  14. Posted by DAGGER 12/10/2007 @ 06:35am

    then you belong in Iraq, Congo, Nigeria, Uzbekistan, Kazakstan, China etc,

    not America.

    In America we have established (or did, till chimpCO came along) that treating people like more than flesh bags is a moral standard to uphold, even if it means bad things happen sometimes. There is a reason that our Armed Services have rules against these things now. As pointed out above, one of those reasons is that torture produces bad information. Haven't we had enough policy based on bad information?

    Take the case of the Peruvian student Magdalena Monteza, abducted as an alleged subversive. After being tortured and repeatedly raped by her captors, she admitted to being part of a revolutionary cell. In the film State of Fear, she describes her story: "I'd never had sex before. I was a virgin, 19 years old… I couldn't take the torture so I decided to sign. I confessed to things I never did… If they had sentenced me to death I wouldn't have cared." The Canadian-Briton Bill Sampson was repeatedly tortured in a Saudi jail. Under torture, he admitted to being part of a network responsible for bombings and murder, thus enabling the authorities to pretend that there is no homegrown terrorism in Saudi Arabia.

    In the lead-up to the Iraq war in 2003, Colin Powell told a "first-hand" story of how Saddam Hussein supported biological and chemical weapons training for al Qaeda. The story, gained from an al Qaeda operative tortured in Egypt, later proved to be untrue. One CIA source was quoted: "This is the problem with using the waterboard [being held under water until you think you will die, known to the Latin American military as the submarino]. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear."

    Moral and practical arguments are inextricably intertwined. If some torture is justifiable in pursuit of the greater good, why not all torture? If the suspected terrorist is too hard a nut to crack, why not torture the man's wife or daughter? Is that not an acceptable price to pay to save lives?

    The US army intelligence manual is clear:

    Interrogation and the Interrogator

    Interrogation is the art of questioning and examining a source to obtain the maximum amount of usable information. The goal of any interrogation is to obtain usable and reliable information, in a lawful manner and in the least amount of time, which meets intelligence requirements of any echelon of command.

    ACCURACY

    The interrogator makes every effort to obtain accurate information from the source. He assesses the source correctly by repeating questions at varying intervals.

    PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE

    The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

    The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

    Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.

    PERSONAL QUALITIES

    An interrogator should possess an interest in human nature and have a personality which will enable him to gain the cooperation of a source.

    SELF-CONTROL

    The interrogator must have an exceptional degree of self-control to avoid displays of genuine anger, irritation, sympathy, or weariness which may cause him to lose the initiative during the interrogation. Self-control is especially important when employing interrogation techniques which require the display of simulated emotions or attitudes

    Try to not live in fear. It's great.

    Pelosis hould resign, she has been mindboggingly ineffective, and now we know she is a Ba-athist. Moral Americans should not accept this kind of behavior from our "leaders".

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2007 @ 09:25am

  15. New game today, lets come up with a definition for

    Pelosititis:

    1: The inability to govern effectively, even when your opposition is a feckless, law breaking fear monger with zero credibility.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2007 @ 09:34am

  16. oh, wait. Sorry guys and gals. As a "secular, atheist liberal", I cannot possibly have a moral center. Without a Holy Book to guide me, I am lost in the wilderness. If I had such a Book, then I would know that torture is way cool, war is fun, cheap and easy and the uber-wealthy deserve their lives of luxury beyond all measure, especially if said wealth is built on top of the great un-washed masses of the worlds poorest countries.

    Can anyone point me to a Mega-Church where I could learn these lessons?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2007 @ 09:40am

  17. 53 place to go in '08! [tinyurl.com].

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/10/2007 @ 04:21am

    yep.

    that confirms it.

    robin leach has bought the new york times.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 09:45am

  18. I would torture any man for the right reason, and so would you.

    Posted by DAGGER 12/10/2007 @ 06:35am

    wow.

    seems like you're doing a good job torturing your karma.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 09:46am

  19. mr. nichols,

    a small point:

    waterboarding isn't "simulated" drowning.

    it IS drowning.

    if they don't stop the person drowns.

    i think it is important that people in the press desist in using the "simulated" moniker because it seems to diminish the seriousness of the crime.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 09:52am

  20. "In America we have established (or did, till chimpCO came along) that treating people like more than flesh bags is a moral standard to uphold, even if it means bad things happen sometimes." Posted by CRABWALK 12/10/2007 @ 09:25am |

    Crabwalk, the problem with a statement like this is it leaves the erroneous impression that torture began with BushCo and, therefore, we can expect methods to change when he is gone.

    I don't care what some manual says. We have relied on torture as an intelligence tool for a long, long time. The only difference between Bush and Clinton is that Slick Willie was smart enough to have others do the dirty work. Can you say 'Rindition?'

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 12/10/2007 @ 09:58am

  21. OOPS! I can say the word, I just can't spell it.

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 12/10/2007 @ 09:59am

  22. By Spencer Ackerman - December 7, 2007, 2:15PM

    "This just in from Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA). She says her letter to the CIA warning it against destroying the interrogation tapes is classified and can't be released".

    See Jane run.

    Posted by drhammer at 12/10/2007 @ 11:28am

  23. Libby dropped his appeal!

    guilty

    guilty

    guilty

    guilty

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2007 @ 11:42am

  24. Posted by RAGGEDSTEP 12/10/2007 @ 09:58am

    chimpy lowered the bar way beyond reasonable.

    As we know, the standard for ethical, moral and legal are what he makes. That is the same as our "enemies". I strive for a better country, one not ruled by fear of the .05% possibility. What Bill Clinton did or did not do is irrelevant and I tire of that defense.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2007 @ 11:47am

  25. I don't care what some manual says.-Posted by RAGGEDSTEP 12/10/2007 @ 09:58am

    You do not care what professional interrogators have to say on the efficacy of methods of interrogation?

    Then what do you base your opinions on? The talking points of politicians?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2007 @ 11:50am

  26. USA today:

    The decision to drop his appeal is also a tactical one. Even if a federal appeals court overturned Libby's conviction, it would only lead to a new trial. If Libby were convicted again, a presidential commutation wouldn't apply, meaning he might have to serve jail time. And by that time, President Bush likely would be out of office.

    Taking the deal, keeping his mouth shut.

    Traitor!!

    Can any pro-torture folk tell me why Libby should not be tortured to reveal what he really knows. It has been proven in court that he cannot be trusted to speak the truth under normal legal proceedings. We are talking National Security here, after all.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2007 @ 11:56am

  27. Thanks for the nice post, J Fabian.

    Much appreciated, --as usual.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 12:11pm

  28. Fucking hypocrites.

    Posted by MADLIB 12/10/2007 @ 12:09pm

    Setting aside the fact that the Congress was fed a line of BS by the Shrubya anadministration, it sounds as though this is not a Dem/Rep issue, but an issue pertninent to the 'ins.'

    Chuck them out and be done with their sorry stimatopigeia-marred asses.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 12:34pm

  29. Jeez... I come back after a few days off, and I read someone claiming that America invented torture? Or was it sarcasm? Either way, it's a dumb comment, with no discernible point.

    Is it just me, or are there some real morons here lately.

    There are just certain things that civilized societies should not do. Torture is high on that list. Period. We signed the Geneva Convention, along with numerous other international laws and treaties, and we are bound by them.

    Now, if you prefer a lawless world, a world in which the is no justice, no recourse or recompense for transgressions, perhaps you would enjoy living in one of the many countries whose governments we have overthrown and toppled. Iraq would be a good place to start.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/10/2007 @ 12:49pm

  30. This Pelosi thing should be a lesson to you Hillary supporters: simply being a woman does NOT translate into feminized public policy, and some women, Hillary included, would govern far worse than some men.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/10/2007 @ 12:50pm

  31. RAGGEDSTEP:

    You are absolutely correct.

    Every single president since and including Truman could and should have been brought up on war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    We need to stop meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations. We need to withdraw all of out troops from abroad and stop maintaining a garrison state.

    People in this country wonder why we are loathed throughout the world, and no, you ring-wing-nutter morons... it's not because they hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we continually impose our illegal will and interests on others, to the detriment of true democracy and sovereignty.

    One day, this dog is going to turn around and bit us in the ass... and it's going to be much worse than the little nip we got on 9/11. And it will happen when we literally are in no position to do anything about it. No empire lasts forever... certainly none that tries to control the entire world.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/10/2007 @ 12:54pm

  32. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/10/2007 @ 12:49pm

    I believe DAGGER with his "American invented torture" was trying to make a lame "Everybody does it...you libs are weakling scum"-type argument.

    I'm presently informing the CIA of DAGGER's IP address and hinting that he "may know something" and would reveal it under "intensive interrogation"....to which I'm sure he'll gladly cooperate.

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 12:56pm

  33. BTW, given Mr Nichols' feelings from this article...

    I wonder if we'll continue to see his (and "The Nation's") lauding of Senator (then Rep.) Sherrod Brown, who voted FOR the Military Commissions Act endorsing torture?

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 12:57pm

  34. METTAYA:

    Replace some with many or most and you have yourself a winner of a comment there.

    However, that does not include Republicans (and most Democrats, mind), particularly the ones who continually act as rubber stamps (or douchebags, in Pelosi's case) for Bush's onslaught against the Constitution and our freedoms.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/10/2007 @ 12:57pm

  35. MASK:

    I got that impression, but he/she did a poor job of explaining his/her position clearly. Oh well... lol.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/10/2007 @ 12:58pm

  36. Posted by CRABWALK 12/10/2007 @ 09:40am

    A moral center comes from the God Within, Holy Spirit, I and I, Brahma, whatever you want to call it - believer or non-believer. The question is not whether you have it (you do) the question is whether you listen and act on what you hear or not. Deciding to torture, rape or murder - unambigiously in the latter category regardless of your personal belief system.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/10/2007 @ 1:00pm

  37. Posted by SRJENKINS 12/10/2007 @ 1:00pm

    Do I require a God or Brahma in order to:

    1: Do good, be good

    or

    2: Do unto others as I would have them do unto me

    ?

    Whereas, if I believe I have God on my side, is it not possible to use reprehensible measures to fulfill Gods will? Rev Larry has shared his belief that it is OK, according to scripture, to annihilate the residents of Fallujah or the Korean peninsula in order to prevent what may be a greater evil. And of course the Jihadists operate with God on their side as well.

    It is possible to be "good" or "evil" with or without God(s).

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2007 @ 1:09pm

  38. CRABWALK:

    Extremely good point.

    I just routinely find it interesting that the most ardent so-called Christians are the ones most willing to employ torture against our enemies, and capital punishment against criminals. I guess when you have authoritarians telling you what to do and the "moral high-ground" staked out, you can do pretty much whatever you want without disturbing your conscience one iota.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/10/2007 @ 1:13pm

  39. We need to stop meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations. We need to withdraw all of out troops from abroad and stop maintaining a garrison state.

    Posted by JORCHEIM

    thanks dude.

    every time i say that here, i get assaulted with "mind your own business"

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 1:18pm

  40. How can we stop this 'moral pressure' over politicians in times of war to act in a 'patriotic way' leaving principles aside. I believe that 'hawks' present their cases as to "support these interrogatory methods, we've discovered there is another terrorist plot going on..". Poor Dems they vote for it (or silence it) then so they won't be accused of anything short of traitors. I call it sentimental patriotic blackmailing.

    Reps have always attacked Pelosi as the 'ultra liberal of San Francisco' representing a city and a vision of society they oppose diametrically. Several of her actions now prove otherwise. Poor Pelosi she ends up loosing an identity: not a leftist for Dems anymore, still a SF-liberal for Reps to pick on.

    Politics is the art of compromise, but some things surely can't be compromised. It is so much more dignifying to follow our conscience than to be reelected.

    Posted by Frank42 at 12/10/2007 @ 1:18pm

  41. nice point about this dovetaiiling nicely with her adamant "off the table" approach to impeachment. wonder how many "off the table" dems have lain with the flea bitten curs of the administration to awaken with compromising fleas...

    ah...dancing with the devil...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/10/2007 @ 1:19pm

  42. FROSTY ZOOM:

    My pleasure as always! :)

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/10/2007 @ 1:23pm

  43. IBBLEBLIBBLE:

    The answer to that query is, almost all of them. Honestly, the only ones I can think who aren't are Kucinich, and his Republican counterpart, Ron Paul.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/10/2007 @ 1:24pm

  44. 'Philadelphia, PA, Independence Hall (AP) December 7, 2013. It was a mob scene here in the courtroom at the trial of FBI Special Agent Ko Stark when it was revealed that the FBI may have had the opportunity to prevent the catastrophes of December 10, but failed to take advantage of them. The makeshift courtroom, set up in rooms here at Independence Hall while decontamination of lower Manhattan continues, erupted when Stark admitted that his task force had indeed intercepted the "Ellipse" truck bomb a full twenty-four hours before the "Harvard Yard" and New York City radiological bombs were set off, not that same morning as many had claimed. This daring feat, which it is believed prevented the destruction either of the White House or the U.S. Capitol itself and for which Stark had received the highest civilian commendation from president Roger Clinton, may now have instead irrevocably tarnished his reputation. As judge Roger Taney attempted to restore order, Agent Stark could be heard shouting in his own defence, "What should I have done? Remember the Pelosi Scandal [Former speaker of the US House of Representative Nancy Pelosi, who was defeated for re-election in 2008 after revelations she had endorsed harsh interrogation techniques]? If I was wrong, if the drivers we arrested were just blowing smoke about the other attacks, I could have gone to jail!" Former New York senator Charles Schumer, still in attendance at the trial despite ongoing cancer treatments, rushed to the cameras and microphones of reporters eager for the comments of the most famous survivor of the December 10 terrorist bombings...'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/10/2007 @ 1:30pm

  45. I just saw '300' (finally, yes, not much free time) and it seemed rather relevant to the discussion of torture as King Leonidas and the Spartans also took the extreme approach to defending their freedom. Xerxes and his massive Persian army on the other hand seemed just as extreme only it was for the purpose of enslavement. So where does torture come into this? Well it really doesn't sorta. One could say the Spartans pretty much tortured themselves into a steely freedom fighting machine; take no prisoners, no mercy, to the death. Xerxes' slaves were tortured into fighting for Xerxes' ambitions. I'm sure there was torture for information historically, at that time, however in the movie, it seemed that there was little need for it because the movie was addressing the concept of strength, courage and freedom and not a leader's weakness, cowardice and abdication. I couldn't help but see the hsuB/cHeney admin as Theron and Gorgo as our Lady Liberty. Perhaps Pelosi's character in this tortured concept of a curently unconstitutional government, is one where she plays it as being a little of both; a much more human adaptation and yet one in which she is also in a much worse inglorious march to nowhere.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/10/2007 @ 1:35pm

  46. Whereas, if I believe I have God on my side, is it not possible to use reprehensible measures to fulfill Gods will? Rev Larry has shared his belief that it is OK, according to scripture, to annihilate the residents of Fallujah or the Korean peninsula in order to prevent what may be a greater evil. And of course the Jihadists operate with God on their side as well.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/10/2007 @ 1:09pm

    Of course, the Luvvies that inhabit the earth never see that the ideology that they espouse (nuke Korea for peace with God's blessing) is essentially identical to the Jihadi that straps on a couple hundred pounds of explosives thinking that he is doing God's will and will land in paradise with a bunch of hotties.

    When this is pointed out to those of that ilk, they become most shrill, pounding their chests and rending their garments proclaiming that such comparisons are not so. Fairly embarassing to see, really, and out will come the usual shouts that we observers are being 'anti-Christian.'

    Not so, at least for myself. I am anti fundamentalist-evangelical, who I conceive to have departed from the Gospel message; I want my faith back just as I want my country back.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 1:37pm

  47. nice point about this dovetaiiling nicely with her adamant "off the table" approach to impeachment. wonder how many "off the table" dems have lain with the flea bitten curs of the administration to awaken with compromising fleas...

    ah...dancing with the devil...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/10/2007 @ 1:19pm

    Methinks that the Speaker is approaching the 'coyote ugly' of politicians -

    Makes you want to gnaw your other arm off so you'll never be able to vote for the likes of her again, doesn't it?

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 1:40pm

  48. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/10/2007 @ 1:19pm

    ¡saludos!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 1:40pm

  49. All this lends new credence to Cindy Sheehan's run for Pelosi's seat.

    --Rashi Kesarwani

    Posted by Nation Intern at 12/10/2007 @ 1:41pm

  50. Posted by SKELETONMAN 12/10/2007 @ 1:40pm

    Man, I really fucked up my attempt at a joke:

    That should be double coyote ugly and it should read, 'gnaw your other arm off, too'

    Sorry.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 1:47pm

  51. "chimpy lowered the bar way beyond reasonable." Posted by CRABWALK 12/10/2007 @ 11:47am | ignore this person

    You are making a moral distinction which I find dubious. What do you think happened to people sent off to places like Egypt?

    I am not using Bill Clinton to defend Bush. I am simply saying you are avoiding a definitive policy conclusion by framing this as a problem of the current administration.

    As I see it we have only three choices here.

    Hypocrisy. Politicians know it happens but turn a blind eye until it becomes public knowledge.

    Commit to only using torture in the face of imminent danger.

    No torture. No Quibbling. Acknowledge that we have used torture and that it can, on occasion, yield accurate information. In spite of that, we decide never to torture nor accept intelligence from people who do.

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 12/10/2007 @ 1:48pm

  52. All this lends new credence to Cindy Sheehan's run for Pelosi's seat.

    --Rashi Kesarwani

    Posted by NATION INTERN 12/10/2007 @ 1:41pm

    I can still see Pelosi being forced into putting impeachment back on the table, just like she did for Frita's AG Frito. And if she does and our troops in Iraq begin coming home in 'large' numbers, 75-100K, will Sheehan still have a strong hand? She definitely will if Pelosi accomplishes neither of those two necessities.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/10/2007 @ 1:53pm

  53. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 1:48pm

    Actually, the dirty little secret is that they are all slime, every last one of them, with no sense of honor or statesmanship. Not a one of them lives the meaning of their oath of office and not a one of them would lay down their life for this nation anymore.

    Perhaps the last truly honorable man in DC was Bob Dole, but by the end, even he was so embittered by everything he had not yet one that he sold his soul to the luciferian overthrow of statescraft by partisanship.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 2:00pm

  54. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 1:48pm

    Actually, the dirty little secret is that they are all slime, every last one of them, with no sense of honor or statesmanship. Not a one of them lives the meaning of their oath of office and not a one of them would lay down their life for this nation anymore.

    Perhaps the last truly honorable man in DC was Bob Dole, but by the end, even he was so embittered by everything he had not yet won that he sold his soul to the luciferian overthrow of statescraft by partisanship.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 2:00pm

  55. Sorry for the double; maybe I should turn up the heat such that my fingers (and my brain) function more properly.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 2:02pm

  56. Rockefeller was the Senior Dem on the Intelligence Committee in the Senate and now chairs the committee. He also didn't seem to find anything offensive about the interogations. Yet I don't see any outrage over his participation.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 1:48pm

    Actually I do believe either Rockefeller, Harman, or both, moved for inquiries, but were voted down. Remember this was back in 2005-06 when repubs were the majority and were pretty much a constant rolling over for the hsuB/cHeney admin rotisserie congress..., a foot-tapping, page plugging, call girl calling, repub congress.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/10/2007 @ 2:05pm

  57. oops, left out K-Street kissing-up, repub congress...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/10/2007 @ 2:08pm

  58. Posted by GUPDOG 12/10/2007 @ 2:00pm

    So you would have us become no different that those we fight? I thought that we were better than that.

    Or maybe you are one of those 'moral relativists' who believe that if we do it, it's ok because we're always the good guys in the Chuck Norris movies, that we don't really enjoy beating the hell out of these people (but even if we did, it'd be ok, because they hate freedom), or that anybody'd do it if they knew it would save a life?

    Get real. The only way to claim the moral high ground is to act as though we belong there.

    If you want to believe shit like that is ok, render yourself to a country where it is condoned. I want my country back from people like you.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 2:10pm

  59. Posted by NATION INTERN 12/10/2007 @ 1:41pm

    Which, when it was announced, was conceded by most to be an exercise in futility if "noble and Right On!"

    The closest election Pelosi EVER faced...was her first in 1988. She got 75% of the vote to the Republican. In 2006 she faced opponents from the GOP, the Greens, and the Libertarians. They (TOTAL) got 20% of the vote.

    Say Sheehan gets that 20% (even the GOP) and 10% more.

    Pelosi wins by 70%...but (as we know) she still WINS. Sheehan's TOTAL campaign is based on impeaching Bush and ending the Iraq War...

    which means in 2010...she's got nothing to run on against Pelosi. Bush will be gone and the Iraq War (out of sheer BUDGETARY needs) will have to be wrapping up or the occupation over.

    So...Pelosi WINS by 70% in 2008...and comes back in 2010 to win by 80-85%.

    Hence...she's not shaking in her Lucchese boots over Cindy Sheehan.

    Mike DeNunzio 14,596 11% Krissy Keefer Green 10,422 8% Philip Berg Libertarian 2,054 1%

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 2:16pm

  60. She definitely will if Pelosi accomplishes neither of those two necessities.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/10/2007 @ 1:53pm

    Another keeper....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 2:18pm

  61. One of the apologies offered for this behavior by Pelosi et al. is that this occurred shortly after 9/11, when we were still in shock. Um, I was around then, and I recall my emotions, and my own shock, very vividly. Even then, I had no illusions that torture should be included as a response to terrorism. I wanted to kill Osama bin Laden myself with my bare hands -- I still do -- but I didn't want to torture him. Even on 9/12/2001, I still believed it was important to hold on to what makes humanity worth saving.

    Mukasey's confirmation as AG is the reason why I haven't been able to be actively involved in politics since. This story reinforces my decision. We cannot allow ourselves to be complicit with such behavior. This is a real test of character for all of us. This is a life and death struggle, I certainly agree. It's even more than that.

    Posted by Donald Weed at 12/10/2007 @ 2:20pm

  62. Posted by CRABWALK 12/10/2007 @ 1:09pm

    I would suggest that most of your problems with religion stem from looking at it from the framework of theology and dogma of organized religions and the bad example of particular individuals. People make mistakes. People do evil things - often out of ignorance and selfishness. But I think it is a mistake to ascribe these failings to God.

    Christ provided a method of determining whether someone was a false prophet (or believer, if you will):

    "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit...Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." (Matthew 7: 15-17, 21)

    In the case of evil, it is even easier to know how to respond. Christ tells us clearly what we need to do. When confronted with evil, we are not to repay evil with evil. Christ also went further - we must not only do good, but be good:

    "You have heard that it was said to those in ancient times, "You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that if you are angry with your brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment..." (Matthew 5:21)

    Few of us are willing to make the effort to live our lives in accordance with the implications of this teaching - that we must suffer and even die for our fellow man. Doing good and being good is not an arrived at state. You could always be better. The more you strive to be better, the more you are moving towards God. "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) Given the bar is so high, is it any wonder that people fail to live up to this standard? It is much easier to pretend Christ meant something else because he is putting the bar so high.

    It is possible to be "good" or "evil" with or without God(s).

    If you concieve of God as the source of all goodness, then this statement makes no sense. If you are doing good and striving to be good, you are moving towards God - wether you have a belief system about God or not. Hell might in fact be the state where you have no connection at all with this goodness, directly proportional to the degree you choose to do and be evil.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/10/2007 @ 2:24pm

  63. Hey Frita,

    And another you can put into any context like your:

    "which means in 2010...she's got nothing to run on against Pelosi"Posted by MASK 12/10/2007 @ 2:16pm

    No telling what shitola Pelosi will be into by then. Bet Frita will never tattle on herself...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/10/2007 @ 2:24pm

  64. Can any pro-torture folk tell me why Libby should not be tortured to reveal what he really knows. It has been proven in court that he cannot be trusted to speak the truth under normal legal proceedings. We are talking National Security here, after all.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/10/2007 @ 11:56am | ignore this person

    Makes perfect sense to me CW!

    Posted by OneVote at 12/10/2007 @ 2:32pm

  65. This review took place in Sept 2002 and the Democrats were the majority in the Senate. Daschle was Majority leader and Graham (D-Fla) was chairman. Rockefeller was a member of that committee.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 2:25pm

    That's not what Rockefeller says. He says it took place in 2003 and the CIA didn't say they 'had' done it already... just that they were 'going' to do it and were told not to do it.

    Rockefeller: Actually, I Just Found Out About the Destroyed Torture-Tapes Yesterday TPM ^ | 12/7/2007 | Spencer Ackerman

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1936582/posts

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/10/2007 @ 2:35pm

  66. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/10/2007 @ 2:33pm

    This from the man who advocated that the rape of a child would be morally acceptable if it would save - what was it, a million? - lives.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 2:47pm

  67. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/10/2007 @ 2:24pm

    Half of Sheehan's campaign is based on Pelosi not impeaching Bush.

    How does she run in 2010 against Pelosi...when Bush will have been out of office for nearly 24 months?

    The other half is getting us out of Iraq....so, you think Hillary (or Obama or Edwards) will keep us in Iraq in 2010 and Pelosi will help? Maybe...but if so, then the Dems will have more trouble than Cindy Sheehan on their hands.

    BTW, you just conceded that Sheehan will HAVE TO run against Pelosi in 2010....thought you were predicting Cindy would win in 2008?!?!??!!?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 2:48pm

  68. LVLIBERTY1:

    While I do in fact agree with your characterization of the Democrats on this issue, your comments ring hollow, for you have proven time and again that you are nothing but a rump apologist for the criminals in the White House. Perhaps when you cease to be such a hypocrite on matters like this, we will heed your commentary more closely.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/10/2007 @ 2:50pm

  69. Posted by SKELETONMAN 12/10/2007 @ 2:47pm

    You claiming no moral ambiguities in your life?

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 2:50pm

  70. LVLIBERTY1:

    While I do in fact agree with your characterization of the Democrats on this issue, your comments ring hollow, for you have proven time and again that you are nothing but a rump apologist for the criminals in the White House. Perhaps when you cease to be such a hypocrite on matters like this, we will heed your commentary more closely.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/10/2007 @ 2:51pm

  71. Wake up or Die!

    Posted by GUPDOG 12/10/2007 @ 2:00pm

    who exactly are these "enemies"?

    do you mean the one's attacking malls in omaha, or schools in virginia?

    should school counsellors have acid-baths ready?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 2:51pm

  72. Sorry for the double; maybe I should turn up the heat such that my fingers (and my brain) function more properly.

    Posted by SKELETONMAN 12/10/2007 @ 2:02pm

    no way, bonester!

    put on a sweater.

    and thanks.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 2:53pm

  73. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    I guess they LOVE torture because they are evil and only someone with your moral clarity has the ability to see this. Get over yourself and your immature fantasies. The only people who love torture are the villians in movies. Even Saddam's sons only used torture as a means to an end and not an enjoyable end in and of itself.

    My response:

    It is not that they love torture (although with Cheney, I am not so sure)... and keep in mind, they don't even acknowledge any of these "techniques" as torture... it's that they (and by they, I am referring to anyone in power who believes that the ends justify the means) love the POWER to be able to torture. It's more insidious, and indeed more evil than the way you described.

    It is pure Machiavellian amoralism, where the highest good is power aggrandizement. And it is wrong. It is evil. And you should know better.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/10/2007 @ 2:55pm

  74. Posted by MASK 12/10/2007 @ 2:50pm

    Absolutely not. I am the original hog calling the pig smelly.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 2:55pm

  75. If you want to believe shit like that is ok, render yourself to a country where it is condoned. I want my country back from people like you.

    Posted by SKELETONMAN 12/10/2007 @ 2:10pm

    last night at the grocery store, i met a man and his son from syria.

    i asked the man (in his sixties?) if he wanted to back to syria.

    he responded by showing me his right hand which was missing the ring finger.

    "too risky", were his words.

    i guess that's what GUPDOG wants for his kids.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 2:58pm

  76. and thanks.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/10/2007 @ 2:53pm

    You're welcome. Not sure what for.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 2:59pm

  77. BTW, you just conceded that Sheehan will HAVE TO run against Pelosi in 2010....thought you were predicting Cindy would win in 2008?!?!??!!?

    Posted by MASK 12/10/2007 @ 2:48pm

    On what delusional planet that you live on did you derive that from this:

    "I can still see Pelosi being forced into putting impeachment back on the table, just like she did for Frita's AG Frito. And if she does and our troops in Iraq begin coming home in 'large' numbers, 75-100K, will Sheehan still have a strong hand? She definitely will if Pelosi accomplishes neither of those two necessities.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/10/2007 @ 1:53pm"

    And hey, BTW:

    GORDON Brown yesterday delivered a stirring festive message to Our Boys in Iraq: "Happy Christmas – war is over."

    The PM was cheered as he praised UK troops and revealed combat operations in Basra will end "within two weeks".

    Iraqi forces will take over as the 4,500-strong British force switches from front-line duties to a training role.

    By early next year, our contingent in Southern Iraq will be cut to 2,500 – and may be withdrawn completely in March.

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article563496.ece

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/10/2007 @ 3:00pm

  78. So Frosty

    Now that there is a little snow on the ground, is it true that you are, in fact, the "fastest belly-whopper of 'em all?"

    Or was that just hyperbole for the TV bio on you?

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 3:01pm

  79. MARYBRETBRAD:

    WTF are you talking about?

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/10/2007 @ 3:05pm

  80. Posted by GUPDOG 12/10/2007 @ 2:00pm

    These are the yappings of a frightened little piss-ant Jack Bauer wanna-be, the perfect dupe for a fascist administration incapable of governing a democratic republic without the use of fear and disinformation.

    You are piddling uncontrollably on the values that made this nation great.

    Run off and buy some red, white, and blue Depends.

    Posted by bwindrip at 12/10/2007 @ 3:05pm

  81. MBB-You live in a fantasy world.there are many humans who get sadistic pleasure from torturing other humans and those are the people who are hired to torture people.if inflicting pain and discomfort on your fellow humans caused you pain and discomfort then you would not be able to do it.Do you know Saddam's sons?There are humans who derive great sexual pleasure from torturing other humans and they exist in the real world and not just on TV.The reason the term "sadist" exists is because sadists exist.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/10/2007 @ 3:05pm

  82. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/10/2007 @ 3:00pm

    So Karl Marx and Rush Limp-bag have got something in common - both had festering pustules on their backsides. I wonder if Marx's carbuncles would have kept him out of 'Nam.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 3:07pm

  83. MBB-There has never been a communist country.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/10/2007 @ 3:07pm

  84. Karl Marx's writings glorifying communism (though Western capitalists regard it as grim and joyless) may well have reflected merely his alienation from society due to a lifelong series of excruciatingly painful boils, according to a recent British Journal of Dermatology article. In an 1867 letter, Marx wrote, "The bourgeoisie will remember my carbuncles until their dying day." [Reuters, 10-30-07]

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/10/2007 @ 2:58pm

    BFD. So Karl Marx and Rush have something in common - both had/have festering pustules on their backsides.

    I wonder if Karl's furunculosis would have got him out of 'Nam?

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 3:10pm

  85. I'll go out on a limb here and agree with "Marybretbrad" that what we call waterboarding is not as bad as inflicting permanent injuries upon the bone structure, as bad as searing flesh with hot metal, or as bad as chopping people up into bits.

    We would also not have been quite as bad as Hitler's fascists if we had imitated him and murdered some Jews, but only a few thousand rather than a few million. Does this mean we should have done it, and that we should have regarded as America-haters those pesky moralists who would have said that we shouldn't do it?

    You may of course object that murdering Jews in imitation of Hitler would have achieved nothing in the war against him. I agree, but this is more or less exactly what I argued about torture in my last posting: It's cruel, AND it doesn't achieve anything practical. Either prove to me that torture achieves something practical in the "War on Terror," or I will maintain that my analogy is perfectly fair. Instead of torturing prisoners of war, we might just as well murder a few of our own civilians, just to show how "tough" we are. It would make the same amount of sense.

    You'll notice that when a liberal calls for "perspective," usually there are at least three parties to consider: our own, that is, the USA, and two others. These two others are usually societies that are comparatively barbaric in similar ways, but that our government treats very differently, for highly suspicious reasons. One example is the contrast between the US treatment of Iran (wants nukes, therefore treated as next war target) and the US treatment of Pakistan (has nukes, but is treated as an ally). Another example is the contrast between our government's treatment of Iraq (nasty dictator, gets deposed) and its treatment of Pakistan (another nasty dictator, gets military aid).

    When a conservative (like "Marybretbrad") calls for "perspective," there are generally only two parties involved: our own, that is, the USA, and one other comparatively barbaric society. In the conservative view, of course, EVERY other society is barbaric compared to our own, which was apparently the only one created personally by God. "Perspective" consists of pointing out how much nastier THEY are than WE are, which is why we should feel permitted, nay morally obligated to become more like them, since the ONLY way we can defeat nasty people is by becoming nastier ourselves.

    Right... Just like we were unable to defeat the Nazis except by imitating them... (Sarcasm alert!)

    If you disagree with this self-flattering but otherwise empty argument, then the neocons will dismiss you as an "America hater." You may yourself judge what you think of this logic.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 12/10/2007 @ 3:11pm

  86. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/10/2007 @ 2:41pm

    i suggest you read la question by henri alleg before you jump on the "chop 'em up bandwagon".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 3:12pm

  87. Posted by SKELETONMAN 12/10/2007 @ 3:01pm

    the thanks is for keeping the heat turned down. my son thanks you, too.

    there's no snow here, just ice.

    doesn't snow much here anymore. winter has become the time of fog.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 3:13pm

  88. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 12/10/2007 @ 3:11pm

    Allow me to hand you the saw, my friend (I don't mean to sound snappish, btw) -

    Care to try either one?

    Who is to say that the psychological trauma of being drowned (possibly repeatedly) is not as damaging as the physical trauma of having your hand hacked off?

    Me, I don't want to try either one. And I don't want either done in my name.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 3:16pm

  89. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/10/2007 @ 3:13pm

    We had a foot last Monday, a couple more inches on Sunday morning, then some more this morning, too.

    I'm bad and naughty now, but next year we will have a pellet (or corn) furnace, then I won't feel so bad turning the heat past 64F.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 3:19pm

  90. Right... Just like we were unable to defeat the Nazis except by imitating them... (Sarcasm alert!)

    Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 12/10/2007 @ 3:11pm

    Actually, you bring up a very good question (or series of questions), one which I have yet to see a neoconista answer (or even attempt to answer, for that matter):

    - Why is it that we were able to defeat totalitarianism in WW II without institutionalizing methods like waterboarding, etc?

    - Why is it that every other US president when confronted with crisis (excluding Nixon, who created his own situation) has been able to guide the nation through that crisis without resorting to the BS that is the 'unified executive' theory and the abrogation of power to the exective branch inherent to its application?

    Is Bush such a poor leader that he has to resort to such measures as extraordinary rendition, warrantless spying, torture, suspension of habeus corpus, failure to abide by international treaty (e.g. the Geneva Conventions)?

    - Is this (Bushism) now the way of life in America? What happens when a president with whom they disagree takes office and declares abortion clinic bombers enemy combatants and taps the phone lines of right to life protesters?

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 3:31pm

  91. - Is this (Bushism) now the way of life in America? What happens when a president with whom they disagree takes office and declares abortion clinic bombers enemy combatants and taps the phone lines of right to life protesters?----Posted by SKELETONMAN 12/10/2007 @ 3:31pm

    I've asked that of many of our Right-wing "pro-life" friends here who have 'no problem' with a powerful Executive.

    or more simply ask them...(on a topic of Constitutionality)..."Okay, so...you got no problem with President HILLARY having those powers?"

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 3:41pm

  92. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/10/2007 @ 3:00pm

    Okay, what does "a strong hand" for Sheehan mean?

    She ONLY loses by 15 points to Pelosi? Either she wins or she loses, HSUB.

    If you're predicting she'll lose, then I stand by my post to NATION INTERN....so what? Pelosi merely comes back in 2010 with NO war and NO Bush and most of Sheehan's "agenda" gone...and wins by 30-35 points.

    If you're predicting she'll win over Pelosi...you're craz....I mean...par for the course.

    BTW, heard a great speech from Stockholm and the Nobel meeting....too bad it wasn't from a Presidential candidate!

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 3:45pm

  93. Sometimes you do what is necessary for the greater good up to a point. However, I still don't think we need to torture.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 3:04pm

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person

    Problem is Liv...what is the greater good and who gets to decide this? We've heard alot of greater good arguments from the present administration that ring kind of hollow wouldn't you agree? Glad you are not on board for torture!

    Posted by OneVote at 12/10/2007 @ 4:20pm

  94. what a piece of crap Pelosi has turned out to be. as the "first woman House speaker", at this point the only thing I can label her as is an "abomination".

    this explains at least some of her reluctance to impeach. she ultimately might just end up impeaching herself as well, and the little twit doesn't want to lose any of her power...much less be called on the carpet for all the BS she's been shovelling. it turns out cindy sheehan is absolutely right: Pelosi is just another power-hungry, undemocratic piece of crap.

    my latest line re Hilary? "fascism with a feminine face". her & Pelosi are two peas of a pod, and unfortunately there are a bunch of female social/political climbers out there who are just as bad as the boys are, if not worse. they just have enlarged breasts, that's all, and an historical chip on their shoulder. it's sad to watch these monkeys in action...

    Posted by Scrub at 12/10/2007 @ 4:29pm

  95. Meanwhile, the CIA destroys actual tapes, of actual interrogations, using these 'questionable' techniques, and the White House instructs everyone to present a wall of silence.

    Condi Rice took that a step further and claims she 'can't recall' ever even seeing tapes.

    At least McCain and Huckabee are willing to stand up and say it was wrong and should be investigated...in support of Democrats Rockefeller and Biden.

    Now, if only the 'moral relativist' Republi-cons at this site had the benefit of the same moral compass, they'd quit pissing and moaning about Pelosi and the Democrats and start holding the White House accountable!

    Posted by Lillian at 12/10/2007 @ 4:30pm

  96. Mr. Nichols, I find the lack of editing in the piece to be torture on my senses. You have way too many typos to be considered a professional.

    And as far as Nancy goes, the truth is, most democrats, were they to have had GW's sense of responsibility, would have done a lot of it exactly the same way and that's what's really got you steamed. You know that any lip service they give to the anti-war, anti-Bush left is just that - lip service to get re-elected.

    It's politics, stupid!

    Rob Gladstone, Esq. Houston, TX

    Posted by rcglad at 12/10/2007 @ 4:46pm

  97. anyone who bombs an abortion clinic or murders an abortionist murderer, should be prosecuted under our existing laws. You don't need anti-terrorism laws to prosecute someone who violates existing law. It is a nonsensical bit of leftist hyperbole.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 4:32pm

    So a person who bombs an abortion clinic (due to political/religious influence or reasoning)....

    isn't a "terrorist"?

    If so, interesting. How DO you define it then? Just Muslims? (and maybe Mormons...heheh)

    If they are a terrorist, then we should apply the same rules. Round up their FRIENDS...wiretap their friends' phones....hold suspect any "imam" (i.e. religious leader) that they came in contact with...or watched on TV!!!!....in short, do "everything necessary" to protect ourselves from the terrorists who want to kill us.

    Uh.....right?

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 4:47pm

  98. Hearing whatever the latest news is about Nancy Pelosi is torture enough for me.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 12/10/2007 @ 4:53pm

  99. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

    Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy.

    "When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."

    Posted by Lillian at 12/10/2007 @ 4:58pm

  100. Posted by MATTMAN 12/10/2007 @ 4:53pm

    Now....picture her naked.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 4:59pm

  101. Anyone who believes that Democrat presidents since FDR did not use waterboarding, as well as other techniques to extract vital information from enemies, is either naive, stupid, or both. Does anyone believe that Clinton (including Clinton's CIA) did not employ the same torture during the Bosnian conflict? Or Carter during the Iranian conflict? They assuredly did. Lets call this controversy what it really is: a method of political debate designed to hamstring the war effort and embarrass Bush. The so-called "progressives" we read every day in these pages would not hesitate to waterboard Republicans, evangelical Christians, or any pro-life advocate. All you have to do is read what is said in these pages and like-minded blogs such as The HuffPo or Daily KOS. So, please, spare me your self-righteous and self-important comments. Given the scrutiny, the current Bush administration is probably the most watched and monitored in history despite claims that Dick Cheney is running around torturing innocent brown people for his personal pleasure. This Administration is treating captives in the terror war better than any past Administration, or any other country for that matter. While liberals are marching and chanting socialist slogans while wearing their fashionable Che Guevara t-shirts, Mao handbags, and sucking-up to Hugh Chavez (almost Presedente-for-life), they ought to root for America FOR A CHANGE.

    Posted by bvolk123 at 12/10/2007 @ 5:00pm

  102. Posted by LILLIAN 12/10/2007 @ 4:58pm |

    In essence, Harman can claim anything she wants on her "vociferous opposition to torture"...

    and since it's classified, nobody can prove she isn't.

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 5:00pm

  103. Posted by BVOLK123 12/10/2007 @ 5:00pm

    Wanna bet he watchs "24" religiously?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 5:01pm

  104. WATERBOARDING IS NOT TORTURE...OUR SPECIAL FORCES TRAIN USING WATERBOARDING ALL THE TIME...U TRAITOROUS LIBZ OBJECT TO THAT???

    IT IS SIMULATED DROWNING AND NO ISLAMO-NAZI HAS EVER DIED OR SUFFERED ILL HEATH EFFECTS....

    THIS IS JUST ANOTHER IN A LONG LINE OF LIBERAL ANTI-AMERICAN CANARDS IN THIER ATTEMPTS TO HELP THE ENEMY

    Posted by Frankshitsz at 12/10/2007 @ 5:22pm

  105. Now....picture her naked.

    heheh

    Posted by MASK 12/10/2007 @ 4:59pm

    I briefly considered posting something like that but didn't want to torture the readers here with that image. Thanks Mask!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 12/10/2007 @ 5:44pm

  106. "... isn't the credibility and the potential effectiveness of the House Democratic Caucus as an honest player in the debate profoundly harmed by the involvement of its leader in behind-the-scenes meetings that by all accounts encouraged the use of that technique?"

    What credibilty & effectiveness? Off the table negated that some time ago. And subsequent non-performance has buried it.

    Jane Harman & "thought crimes" ... now there's a thought. Beria, The Grand Inquistor, Savanarola, Himmler, Arthur Koestler ... so many would recognize this for precisely what it is, the totalitarian temptation once again victorious.

    Disgusted? Then support Kucinich, this Sat Dec 15. Donate at dennis4president.com A strong showing just might put some spine into more "viable" candidates like Obama. Forget HRC, her soul is sold, owed, delivered. Ask Marc Rich et al.

    Posted by sloper at 12/10/2007 @ 6:07pm

  107. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 4:08pm

    My understanding of why no one spoke about what the CIA torture or tapes or their possible destruction, was that it was ala NATIONAL SECURITY-- remember the old/new/current illegal/unconstitutional spying without a warrant that no one was/is supposed to talk about, the same reason-- NATIONAL SECURITY. Same reason our Treasury is in the red to such a great extent w/out documentation of where it went-- NATIONAL SECURITY. Why a covert agent was outed-- NATIONAL SECURITY. DoJ made into a GOP Gestapo-- NATIONAL SECURITY. Can't investigate anything hsuB/cHeney do-- NATIONAL SECURITY.

    Yeah, it's all BS not NS.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/10/2007 @ 6:10pm

  108. So many neocons stand up to defend torture, yet not one can prove that it works.

    All that they can allege is that barbarous religious fanatics do it, perhaps even more brutally than our government does. I can accept that.

    "BVolk" claims that elected officials of the Democratic Party torture as much as Republicans do, which is an interesting hypothesis with only two problems:

    (1) This hypothesis is not proven, and "BVolk" provides no evidence for it.

    (2) Even if we assume that "BVolk" is correct, and that Democrats torture secretly as much or more than Republicans do openly, this by no means proves that torture is not wrong, and it does not prove that torture serves any practical purpose.

    I maintain, now as before, that there is no reason to torture; therefore, there is no excuse for it.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 12/10/2007 @ 6:12pm

  109. Posted by GUPDOG 12/10/2007 @ 2:00pm

    So you know by looking who deserves do be dipped in acid?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2007 @ 6:17pm

  110. People like Rudolph were not trying by their own admission to influence a nation but to take justice into their own hands.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 5:30pm | ignore this person

    This is patently false. From Rudolph's own statement regarding his motives...

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/13/eric.rudolph/index.html

    Rudolph issued a rambling 11-page statement Wednesday after pleading guilty in Alabama and Georgia, declaring: "Abortion is murder. And when the regime in Washington legalized, sanctioned and legitimized this practice, they forfeited their legitimacy and moral authority to govern."

    Rudolph also bombed a lesbian nightclub in Atlanta in February 1997, an attack in which five people were wounded.

    In his statement Wednesday, he said that while homosexuality does not pose a threat when kept in private, the "attempt to force society to accept and recognize this behavior" should be met with "force if necessary."

    Rudolph was OBVIOUSLY striking out at the American "government" and at American "society" in an effort "to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought,"...

    ...exactly as Schmid defines terrorism.

    Any honest person would easily see and readily admit that much!

    Posted by Lillian at 12/10/2007 @ 6:37pm

  111. The War Party is alive and well and Pelosi is part and parcel of it. The Military, Media, Industrial,Congressional Complex is what is driving this country to ruin. Now we can add torture to the Empire's playbook, for the neoliberals right along with the neocons.

    Posted by mmckinl at 12/10/2007 @ 7:05pm

  112. Bleed'n Heart Lefties are parasites feasting on the nation.

    The complaints about Pelosi's responsibility for torture are silly whimpers made by people who refuse to live in the real world. We won the Cold War despite the backstabbing Left and it appears we'll have to fight & win the war against Islamism despite more obstructionism from the wacky Left.

    Oh yeah, Yours truly: Lieutenant, 1st Infantry Division, Viet-Nam, 1966-7; Captain, 101st Airborne, Viet-Nam, 1969-70, Life member MOPH (Military Order of the Purple Heart).

    Yes, as do most veterans,I strongly support the military campaigns in Iraq & in Afghanistan.

    Posted by Sinoe River at 12/10/2007 @ 7:08pm

  113. The War Party is alive and well and Pelosi is part and parcel of it. The Military, Media, Industrial,Congressional Complex is what is driving this country to ruin. Now we can add torture to the Empire's playbook, for the neoliberals right along with the neocons.

    Posted by mmckinl at 12/10/2007 @ 7:08pm

  114. Posted by BVOLK123 12/10/2007 @ 5:00pm

    The liberals of course are quite hypocritical in all this. The Nation is quite complicit. Who here for example would not readily submit to any form of torture rather than having to read one of Rese's posts?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/10/2007 @ 7:18pm

  115. Lvliberty, you're a liar. You were not waterboarded, or you would not be saying "there was no danger of drowning". Waterboarding is intentionally filling the victims lungs with water in a controlled manner, and stopping the drowning right before the victim dies. It is disgusting, Look what they have done,l Conservative Authoritarians and the wimp Democrats refuse to stand up for whats right, America needs our honor and dignity restored. Bush has now destroyed evidence, and nobody knows how much evidence has been destroyed. Democrats who try to be bi-partisan and compromise and work something out with Authoritarians are just selling We the People out.

    Conservatives: WRONG about torture

    Posted by conshame at 12/10/2007 @ 7:38pm

  116. Conservatives do not like honor, dignity, freedom, courage, or what is right. They hate America because of the honor and freedom we still have, they want to get rid of honor.

    Posted by conshame at 12/10/2007 @ 7:42pm

  117. I briefly considered posting something like that but didn't want to torture the readers here with that image. Thanks Mask!

    Posted by MATTMAN 12/10/2007 @ 5:44pm

    Thanks, man, you damn near induced organ failure.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 7:46pm

  118. Lvliberty, you're a liar. You were not waterboarded, or you would not be saying "there was no danger of drowning".

    Posted by CONSHAME 12/10/2007 @ 7:38pm

    Don't forget that Luvvy was dead for like, 6 or 8 hours, in the morgue with a toe tag and the whole deal.

    Perhaps his waterboarding is what induced this unfortunate state and the removal of his dihydrogen oxide embibed shroud is what brought him back to us.

    I have said this before of Luvvy: if he hasn't done it, he's flown over it.

    Caveat emptor.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/10/2007 @ 7:57pm

  119. Wait wait wait.... Pelosi had credibility? When? She is easily the dimmest bulb in Congress and has a staff of yes-men/women responding to her daily idiocies. Credibility? HA! Nixon had more!

    Posted by ThinkAboutIt at 12/10/2007 @ 8:30pm

  120. The complaints about Pelosi's responsibility for torture are silly whimpers made by people who refuse to live in the real world.......Yours truly: Lieutenant, 1st Infantry Division, Viet-Nam, 1966-7; Captain, 101st Airborne, Viet-Nam, 1969-70, Life member MOPH (Military Order of the Purple Heart).

    Yes, as do most veterans,I strongly support the military campaigns in Iraq & in Afghanistan.

    Posted by SINOE RIVER 12/10/2007 @ 7:08pm

    Welcome, Capt. RIVER! Always, always good to hear from a veteran!

    No upstanding person wishes to resort to torture as the first, second or even third option....that said, one has to wonder why OUR officers, aviators, special ops, and intelligence agents undergo some form of simulated `tortures' in training?

    Does torture work? Guess one can think of those American POW who appeared in N. Vietnamese propaganda.....perhaps the good Capt. can shed some light through having been twice, a part of that war.

    FYI, Capt., most of the commenters here, are <40 yrs old without first hand memory of the 60s' or 70s'.

    Posted by Happy at 12/10/2007 @ 9:17pm

  121. FYI, Capt., most of the commenters here, are <40 yrs old without first hand memory of the 60s' or 70s'.----Posted by HAPPY 12/10/2007 @ 9:17pm

    And you are????

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 9:52pm

  122. Posted by SINOE RIVER 12/10/2007 @ 7:08pm

    So you would not follow the rules of the US Army? You would encourage others to follow a different path than the one laid out by your superior officers?

    US Army manual on interrogation:

    PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE

    The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

    Do you know more about this than these guys?

    Not a single neo-con 'fraidy cat has touched on the fact that their very own precious Armed Services don't think physical torture is effective.

    SINO, go read up on the Solidarity movement in Poland, then get back to us about the "despite the left" bullshit.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2007 @ 10:25pm

  123. Gee, Happy, why don't you tell Sino about how brave you are?

    Oh, wait, that's right, you ignore difficult questions almost as much as you pander to ex-military.

    A Lesser Known Yellow Bellied Brown-nosed Skink, of the Parasite Family. But you are a Happy Coward.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2007 @ 10:30pm

  124. ????

    Posted by MASK 12/10/2007 @ 9:52pm

    ?????

    Posted by Happy at 12/10/2007 @ 10:35pm

  125. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 5:30pm

    See, here's the deal, LL. You want Muslim terrorists to be "terrorists" and abortion clinic bombers to be "criminals"...

    because it plays to your religious bigotry towards Islam.

    Islamic criminals MUST be terrorists...while those of a Christian descent (literally) are mere criminals.

    But it doesn't matter....because you are STILL investing the power to "go after terrorists" in the hands of a (potential) Hillary Administration...to define terrorism as SHE sees fit, and use the widest possible latitude (as Bush has) to "stop it".

    Don't bitch and moan when she turns "criminals" into "terrorists".....you helped her.

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 10:46pm

  126. Welcome, Capt. RIVER! Always, always good to hear from a veteran!

    ~Slap Happy

    Hey Haps,

    I'm a veteran USMC noncom. Does that mean you're happy to hear from me too?!

    Nah, I'd bet a fat wad of green that I'm still on your ignore list.

    By the way, Cpt. Snowy River sounds like a grade A wind bag, war story, self-promoting suck-ass. Just the kind of cretin for you to suck up to Slapster.

    One small point here as well. There is a difference between the kind of mindless name calling that issues most frequently from the right-wing, slack-jawed yokels, and good old fashioned creative jabs at the pomposity that rears its vacuous head all too frequently.

    I'll engage with anyone who can rub two coherent thoughts together. But we should keep in mind the necessity of periodically calling the cards of some of the blustering blunderbusses who fire their impotent guns here.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 10:47pm

  127. Posted by HAPPY 12/10/2007 @ 10:35pm

    How old are YOU, HAPPY? (given your view of "the rest" of the youngsters).

    If over 50...how did you escape...or.."dang it, just missed the glory" of going to Vietnam?

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 10:47pm

  128. Excellent query, Maskot.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 10:52pm

  129. ..."dang it, just missed the glory" of going to Vietnam?

    Posted by MASK 12/10/2007 @ 10:47pm

    Sometimes, one gets UNlucky! Turned 18 just when America pulled the plug (`72) and went to the Draft Lottery system. No matter, though I had a 200+ number, I loved the military & I went to college via NAVY ROTC....father was career Air Force w/little money..... When the Vietnam War was truly lost and there was no will to help S. Vietnam despite N. Vietnam's breaking the Paris Peace Accord, my youthful thrill was gone, I resigned from the ROTC, a bit disgusted....not with the military, with the politics of defeat! Good thing I left the Navy, serving under Carter would have turned my stomach.

    While we didn't win THAT war, it was still a major part of our eventual winning of the Cold War.....that ending, more than justified our involvement and for which we, and the world, owe a huge debt of gratitude to the men/women whose names are now part of the Mall.

    Posted by Happy at 12/10/2007 @ 11:17pm

  130. Sometimes, one gets UNlucky! Turned 18 just when America pulled the plug (`72) and went to the Draft Lottery system. No matter, though I had a 200+ number, I loved the military & I went to college via NAVY ROTC....father was career Air Force w/little money..... When the Vietnam War was truly lost and there was no will to help S. Vietnam despite N. Vietnam's breaking the Paris Peace Accord, my youthful thrill was gone, I resigned from the ROTC, a bit disgusted....not with the military, with the politics of defeat! Good thing I left the Navy, serving under Carter would have turned my stomach.

    While we didn't win THAT war, it was still a major part of our eventual winning of the Cold War.....that ending, more than justified our involvement and for which we, and the world, owe a huge debt of gratitude to the men/women whose names are now part of the Mall.

    ~HAPLESS @ 11:17pm

    Oh my god, that is one sorry-ass quip.

    I've referred to you as Sad Sack in many previous posts, yet I never realized how forlorn you really are, dude.

    Truly, such fools as these prove the non-existence of "God". For if God is the creator of all that exists, he/she/it can only be apprehended as a bungler of the highest order --many thanks to the immortal David Hume for the origination of that line of argument.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 11:48pm

  131. Why all the handwringing over captured combatants – all of which would gladly slit your throat and every member of your family's.

    Waterboarding does no physical harm to the prisoner and extracts information – what else could you hope for? Incase you guys haven't noticed the new World War has no country that will sign Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of POWs – there is no country at war with us but a religion gone mad.

    Stop worrying about human pond scum; but then again, what would you guys worry about?

    You watch, the next attack against the US will cause massive casualties and you wienies will slither away and your fingerprints will be all over our inability to "connect the dots".

    Posted by PerryM at 12/11/2007 @ 12:08am

  132. Why all the handwringing over captured combatants...Waterboarding does no physical harm to the prisoner and extracts information – what else could you hope for?

    Posted by PERRYM 12/11/2007 @ 12:08am

    Modern "handwringing" by liberals is a reflection of too much prosperity, too much Starbucks coffee & losing touch with life of the masses and shedding the sheer `street sense' still needed in this still untamed world.

    But you're right.....waterboarding is my preferred way to be `tortured' as compared to an 18-volt drill with a dulled point digging into my kneecap, skull, balls, eyes, ears...well, anywhere really!

    Posted by Happy at 12/11/2007 @ 12:21am

  133. However, I still don't think we need to torture.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 3:04pm

    now THAT'S how a man of god should speak.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 12:22am

  134. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER IN A LONG LINE OF LIBERAL ANTI-AMERICAN CANARDS IN THIER ATTEMPTS TO HELP THE ENEMY

    Posted by FRANKSHITSZ 12/10/2007 @ 5:22pm

    YEP! BET THOSE LIBERALS WANT SOMEONE TO BLOW THEM UP NEXT TIME THEY GO TO THE MALL.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 12:24am

  135. Don't bitch and moan when she turns "criminals" into "terrorists".....you helped her.

    Posted by MASK 12/10/2007 @ 10:46pm

    THAT'S why i haven't put you on ignore.

    just kidding.

    great post, dude.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 12:28am

  136. While we didn't win THAT war, it was still a major part of our eventual winning of the Cold War.....that ending, more than justified our involvement and for which we, and the world, owe a huge debt of gratitude to the men/women whose names are now part of the Mall.

    Posted by HAPPY 12/10/2007 @ 11:17pm

    something about this just doesn't make much sense.............

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 12:30am

  137. So, this explains why from day one Polosi took impeachment off the table. She knew that if she went forward with impeachment, the Bushies would leak the fact that she knew about water-board.

    Posted by rekasto at 12/11/2007 @ 12:31am

  138. You watch, the next attack against the US will cause massive casualties and you wienies will slither away and your fingerprints will be all over our inability to "connect the dots".

    ~PERRYM @ 12:08am

    Brilliant insights, P. Mason.

    Perhaps Clouseau would be more apropo.

    But keep living in fear of virtually non-existent and ineffectual bogeymen, while your government --you know, the one that's been congealing into a sluggish concoction of connivance for at least several decades now-- slowly shunts your oxygen supply and you recede into the stupor of a convalescent bliss.

    Enjoy your dirt nap, clueless joe.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/11/2007 @ 12:32am

  139. Posted by PERRYM 12/11/2007 @ 12:08am

    i wish you luck.

    look out, here THEY come.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 12:33am

  140. Burge cases come back to forefront

    Investigations, suits dealing with ex-cop force Daley's hand

    By Steve Mills and David Heinzmann | Tribune staff reporters

    December 9, 2007

    Mayor Richard Daley scrambles to deal with a string of current scandals erupting inside the Chicago Police Department, old scandals continue to haunt him.

    The news of nearly $20 MILLION in settlements with four former Death Row inmates allegedly tortured by police into making confessions two decades ago -- when Daley was the Cook County state's attorney -- comes amid a spate of fresh scandals that have forced the mayor to take unexpected steps in his dealing with his most troublesome department.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-burgefolo-bddec09,1,4093309 .story

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 12:37am

  141. you know, though...i remember the dem debate question about torture, the one they ambushed hilly with, you know? if there was a terrorist nuke out there and they had the terrorist and being nice to him wasn't doing it...and they knew he knew?

    i'd be all for torturing the guy. bust out the car battery and shock his pecker til it smokes if they have to.

    but nobody would really give a rats ass if there were a ticking nuke...the prob comes with this sketchy casual namby pamby crap - overused...

    like when i was teaching...every once in a blue moon, nothing wrong with blowing as fuse and scarin' the poop outa them...just as long as ya really kind of freak them out and its for a damned good reason, but resort to it too often and it not only loses its effectiveness, but becomes wrong...a sign that the problem ain't with them...

    and from what i see and hear the casual, widespread use of torture that has characterized this administration is a sign not of competance nor of strength, but of moral failure, sloth, and cardboard cowboyism...

    but if they get them a real nuke hidin' bad guy with the location in his head...load him up with truth serum, shove fire crackers up his ass, roll him in honey and poor ants over him...whatever it takes...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/11/2007 @ 01:26am

  142. Posted by FRANKSHITSZ 12/10/2007 @ 5:22pm | ignore this person

    I don't even remember what you said. Just that is was incredibly dumb, ignorant, as, it was and is not, backed up by expert testimony or information, and almost universally contradicted by soldiers, and intelligence operatives.

    Posted by PERRYM 12/11/2007 @ 12:08am | ignore this person

    Same (only difference being orders of magnitude worse) ignorant (pardon, the non waste of elocution ) dumbshit ... see above.

    Posted by HAPPY 12/10/2007 @ 11:17pm | ignore this person

    Please, how can you call yourself a (I mean, really ... ) capitalist, and not know the "war," had next to nothing, to do with communism? It was about rice ... Before the Vietnam war America produced about as much rice as I have stated the war was truly about communism. While Vietnam produced a significant share of the worlds output. After the war there was a total and complete reversal in this regard, Vietnam produced next to nothing, while America produced in quantities that rivaled Vietnam's prewar output.

    The propaganda about the Vietnam war being about "the red threat" is nonsense bullshit. And they (the agrarian bible belt congressmen, who, speaking for their masters, and from whom the war issued ...) cared so little about the soldiers (here, reduced to mere enforcers) that they dumped defoliant on them while they fought and died. It would be more correct to say that the war was about agent orange than (which it was not about at all) communism.

    Posted by V at 12/11/2007 @ 01:48am

  143. COLORADO SPRINGS (Reuters) - A 24-year-old Denver-area man was responsible for weekend shootings at both a Colorado evangelical Christian church and a missionary training center that killed four people, police said on Monday.

    looks like another terrorist attack. when are you going to start doing something about the real terrorists?

    Medical studies estimate that between 1,000 and 1,500 deaths per year in theUnited States are the result of murder-suicide. This VPC analysis reveals that, in thefirst half of 2005, there were 591 murder-suicide deaths, of which 264 were suicides and 327 were homicides. Using these figures, more than 10 murder-suicide events occur in the United States each week. Of the 264 suicides, 248 were male and 16 were female. Of the 327 homicides, 255 victims were female and 72 victims weremale. Included in the homicide victims were 47 children and teens less than 18 yearsof age. By doubling the total number of fatalities during the six-month period for ayearly estimate, there were an estimated 1,182 murder-suicide deaths in 2005.

    1200 murder-suicide deaths per year * 6 years since 9/11 = 7200 deaths

    perhaps inward is a better place to search for terrorists.............................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 01:55am

  144. My take on Nancy Pelosi, as speaker, follows;

    Cindy for congress ... Act [cindyforcongress.org]

    Posted by V at 12/11/2007 @ 01:57am

  145. Cindy, in her own words ...

    "The Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act need to be repealed and Habeas Corpus needs to be restored. These things can only happen with fearless leadership, not fearful capitulation to a lying President.

    I am running unaffiliated with any political party because I believe the corporately controlled "two" party system is responsible for keeping our country in a state of cold and hot wars for decades and it's time to rein in the military industrial war complex that President Eisenhower warned us of almost 50 years ago.

    My candidacy and service will put people before profits and people before political expediency. This country is ripe for a change and it is going to start right here and right now!

    I dedicate my candidacy to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been tragically harmed by BushCo with the complicity of Congress, Inc.

    I dedicate my candidacy to my children and unborn grandchildren. All the children of the world deserve long lives lived in peace, prosperity and environmental sustainability.

    Last of all, I dedicate my candidacy to my hero, Casey who always stood up for what he believed in, even if it wasn't popular. He is my role model and I always strive to make him proud."

    Posted by V at 12/11/2007 @ 02:03am

  146. Posted by V 12/11/2007 @ 01:48am

    i found this, but would appreciate any suggested reading:

    http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Iraq-US-Agribusiness-Profit15mar05.htm

    According to John King, vice chairman of the USA Rice Council, Iraq was the top market for U.S. rice in the late '80s, prior to the 1991 Gulf war. "The U.S. rice industry wants to play a major role once again in supplying rice to Iraq," King told the U.S. House Agriculture Committee this past June. "With the current challenges facing the U.S. rice industry ... renewed Iraqi market access could have a tremendous impact in value-added sales."

    King added: "The liberation of Iraq in 2003 by coalition forces has brought freedom to the Iraqi people. The resumption of trade has also provided hope for the U.S. rice industry."

    The American wheat industry is also poised for a new export banquet. That industry – which at one point in the '70s had a 100 percent market share in Iraq – recently secured its first exports there in years. "Iraq is under a lot of pressure to buy wheat from the United States," said a disheartened executive from the Grains Council of Australia, a top wheat exporter to Iraq.

    Ultimately, Ritchie says, American taxpayers may also pay a stiff price for any wartime export bubble. He points to the Vietnam War, during which the American rice industry was temporarily enriched by huge exports. Then the postwar market evaporated, and the industry was propped up with big subsidy payments. "The U.S. can create a giant export flow for underpriced commodities, and taxpayers can just pay through the nose," Ritchie warns. "The dangers to producers there are real, and the dangers to American taxpayers are equally real, and Vietnam has shown us how devastating this is."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 02:25am

  147. Cindy, in her own words ...

    I am running unaffiliated with any political party because I believe the corporately controlled "two" party system is responsible for keeping our country in a state of cold and hot wars for decades and it's time to rein in the military industrial war complex that President Eisenhower warned us of almost 50 years ago.

    ~posted by V

    Can anyone imagine those words coming out of an American president? The fact that we haven't heard words anywhere near as trenchant coming from our "leaders" is as good an indication as any that the game is over here.

    Nice post, V.

    In the meantime, I will be looking to support Cindy's hail mary attempt to wake this comatose country up.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/11/2007 @ 02:27am

  148. V and fz,

    I hadn't heard the rice angle before myself. I had thought of Vietnam primarily as welfare for the war machine with an eye toward the tin, rubber and oil of SE Asia.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/11/2007 @ 02:33am

  149. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/11/2007 @ 01:55am

    we have met the enemy and he is us -- walt kelly.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 02:34am

  150. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/11/2007 @ 02:33am

    i hadn't either.

    so i went a-googling.

    interesting about iraq. i think these agro-reasons are but one of many (greed-filled) reasons.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 02:35am

  151. hey late nighters. here's some happy bedtime reading. [countercurrents.org]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 02:41am

  152. we have met the enemy and he is us -- walt kelly.

    ~fz

    Glad to see you read that pretty fascinating piece from Info Clearing House.

    Here's another good line:

    "The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars, but in ourselves"

    --Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", also quoted in the excellent Edward R Murrow homage, "Good Night and Good Luck".

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/11/2007 @ 02:46am

  153. This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.

    The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

    But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.

    The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

    Very interesting topic, fz. Thanks.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/11/2007 @ 02:55am

  154. good night, and good luck

    to everyone of us

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/11/2007 @ 02:58am

  155. "Good Night and Good Luck".

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/11/2007 @ 02:46am

    speaking of terrorists:

    CASSIUS: This it is

    'Tis better that the enemy seek us:

    So shall he waste his means, weary his soldiers,

    Doing himself offence; whilst we, lying still,

    Are full of rest, defense, and nimbleness.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 03:08am

  156. I oppose waterboarding and torture in all but the most extreme situations ("nuke-about-to-explode-in-New-York"), but the author is incorrect to say it violates the Constitution or Geneva conventions. The Constitution only applies to US citizens, and the Geneva Convention only applies to personnel fighting as members of a state military. It doesn't apply, for example, to a drug dealer caught in L.A., or a banker accused of fraud, or a Saudi-born member of Al-Qaeda caught in Afghanistan.

    There are sufficient real morale and practical objections to torture; we don't need to manufacture false ones. - I just realized his name is John Nichols. My first name is Jason, my username is a coincidence.

    Posted by JNichols at 12/11/2007 @ 04:44am

  157. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/11/2007 @ 02:25am | ignore this person

    First, a quote, a bit earlier in the same section from which you posted. Emphasis, which ended up emphasizing the whole damned (pun intended ...) thing, mine.

    "Liberation – for U.S. commodities

    Meanwhile, the $100 million agricultural reconstruction project undertaken by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) aims to get the government out of food production. "The idea is to make this completely a free market," says Doug Pool, agriculture irrigation and environment specialist with the USAID's office of Iraq Reconstruction.

    The USAID goal – mirroring U.S. and WTO policies – is to help the new government phase out farm subsidies. "The Minister of Agriculture has been quite good in doing that," says Pool. State enterprises, such as the Mesopotamia Seed Co., "need to be spun off and privatized," he said.

    Other USAID efforts include an "agricultural mechanization program," deploying U.S. companies such as Case New Holland to rehabilitate Iraq's dilapidated farm machinery. While this may seem like a goodwill gesture, it has its payoffs. "Of course, the companies themselves will eventually sell replacement machinery and parts," adds Pool, "so it will be a good deal for them.""

    I'll develop a proper search, strategy-query, in a bit, but for now one can approach the subject sideways;

    Kamarck, Edward (ed.) / Arts in society: the humanist alternative Volume 10, Issue 1 (Spring-Summer, 1973)

    "The legislators who come from the rice cup states in the South work hand in-hand with the Air Force to defoliate not only the trees in Viet Nam but the rice fields. Indo-China was the first producer of rice in the world until we started defoliating so we could see the enemy, which was always a crock of shit. But now the Vietnamese people have to import rice from us. They can't grow it anywhere. It's well documented."

    Other than a search of the the agricultural committee's pre-war congressional records, one would have to read the "Choice" by Samuel F. Yette.

    Posted by V at 12/11/2007 @ 05:28am

  158. Can anyone point me to a Mega-Church where I could learn these lessons?

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/10/2007 @ 09:40am

    Crab, Just flip your t.v. on out here in the south. One of every three channels is some doorknob thumping a bible telling people they are heading straight to hell without passing go unless they accept Jasus as their savior.

    As I've pointed out earlier, the Jesus these folks worship carries an M16 in one hand, and shootgun in the other and a knife in his teeth. You know, the old testament Jesus.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 07:11am

  159. if only we had known then what we know now!" from the dem supporters here?

    Fucking hypocrites.

    Posted by MADLIB 12/10/2007 @ 12:09pm

    Hey, we've been hammering on Pelosi waaaaay before this "revelation" came out.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 07:15am

  160. CRABWALK:

    Extremely good point.

    I just routinely find it interesting that the most ardent so-called Christians are the ones most willing to employ torture against our enemies, and capital punishment against criminals. I guess when you have authoritarians telling you what to do and the "moral high-ground" staked out, you can do pretty much whatever you want without disturbing your conscience one iota.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/10/2007 @ 1:13pm

    I sure would have to laugh when I die and find out that the one thing you were supposed to learn down here was compassion for your fellow man and found out that all of these so called "religious war monger folks" on all sides had a nasty surprise waiting for them.

    My idea of heaven would be if God was black female, middle eastern female or asian female. I'm a guy, but it sure would be interesting to see some people squirming trying to tell the all mighty why they were filled with hatred towards the all mighty's likeness.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 07:22am

  161. Posted by PERRYM 12/11/2007 @ 12:08

    Again, do you guys have some omniscient insight into who is and who is not a terrorist? Does it make you feel safer knowing that Maher Arar was tortured in your name? Mr. Arar was not a terrorist, or a "combatant". He is innocent, and you sent him to Syria to be tortured. What was gained?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/11/2007 @ 07:39am

  162. I think the majority party in the house of representatives needs to remove the acting speaker and replace her with a person lacking a conflict of interest on either the impeachment issue or the torture issue.She obviously can't by the majority leader on these major issues without a conflict of interest which leads to her covering her ass instead of doing the job was elected to do.

    If Pelosi really put the nation ahead of her career, she's step down now.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 07:43am

  163. Sorry, she'd step down now.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 07:43am

  164. Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/11/2007 @ 07:22am

    hmmm, God as Asian chick? Maybe I do want to go to heaven...

    Did ya'll hear the joke:

    The young Muslim suicide bomber gets to heaven to see a room full of young boys, an angel says to him "Who said they were going to be 72 female virgins?"

    (reverse this for the Catholic Priesthood!)

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/11/2007 @ 07:48am

  165. I've been waiting a long time for The Nation to stop being enablers of the Democratic establishment. So many of them are spineless, corporatists, and opportunists that, unless more courageous progressives get elected, they will remain hopeless for the rest of our lives. At least when the GOP formally controlled Congress (now they informally control, by intimidation), there was no pretense.

    Posted by jeffox at 12/11/2007 @ 07:50am

  166. Do the fear-filled neo-cons know that 1/2 of "the most dangerous" "combatants" held at Gitmo have been released? If they were subjected to harsh torture, do you clowns think they returned to their homes and said "Lets help these Americans!"?

    Do you clowns remember the comment from a field commander when the Abu Graib pics came out ?(keep in mind, there are 2 DVD's full of pics the military will not release because they are too damaging to the US) This America hating touchy-feely commander said something like "the 6 guys that lost us the war".

    Why would he say that?

    Do you sheep want to win the Global War on Terror by being like than Saddam and Bin Laden? Do you think you CAN win it like that?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/11/2007 @ 07:55am

  167. Posted by JEFFOX 12/11/2007 @ 07:50am

    Yep.

    Hang around, Jeff, and the Clowns will tell you how you actually support the dems. These pages are filled with disdain for our 2 party system, and the failure of the dems to do the right things. But, one would never know it reading the comments of Luvvy etc.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/11/2007 @ 07:58am

  168. The young Muslim suicide bomber gets to heaven to see a room full of young boys, an angel says to him "Who said they were going to be 72 female virgins?"

    (reverse this for the Catholic Priesthood!)

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/11/2007 @ 07:48am

    Liked that one Sir Crab.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 08:00am

  169. Posted by HAPPY 12/10/2007 @ 11:17pm

    or.."dang it, just missed the glory" of going to Vietnam?----Posted by MASK 12/10/2007 @ 10:47pm

    Yep, figured. Another "Aww, man. I sure wanted to go to 'Nam and kick some Commie ass, but I juuuuusssssst missed it. But man, if I had gone ..and I would have...I wouldn't have turned out like one of those pansy cowards like John Kerry or Max Cleland, or sell-outs so worried about 'torture' like John McCain or Chuck Hagel! I'd have remained a true blue American like other 'almost-vets' like Bush, Cheney, or Limbaugh!" kind of thing.

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 09:35am

  170. Posted by V 12/11/2007 @ 05:28am

    thanks, brother.

    i'll keep searching for more.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 10:13am

  171. Posted by MASK 12/11/2007 @ 09:35am |

    ouch!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 10:17am

  172. Of course Pelosi, in a rare unguarded moment, spoke contemptously of anti-war protestors violating her gated community, and expressed disappointment that, unlike the homeless, they couldn't simply be carted away by the police. That gives you some idea of how she views the little people, ala Leona Helmsley. One is left to wonder if good Italian Catholic, Nancy would consider crucifixtion, "torture". And despite the latest round of damage control--suggesting that although torture(whatever that may be, as if it was an arbitrary call)is morally repugnant, it works. That is the message--it works. Only problem is it does NOT work!! The victim of torture will confess to anything to end the suffering--ESPECIALLY what he thinks the torturer wants to hear. That is the part they neglect to broadcat on the world news in the desperation to save face and justify bipartisan tacit approval of, lets face it, brutality. Finally, if this is NOT torture, what is to stop anyone else from treating US troops any differently? After all, it is not torture, and latest snotty bimbo Bush press secretary stated that each country is entitled to interpret Geneva as they see fit.

    Posted by Lil at 12/11/2007 @ 10:18am

  173. Exactly what Democrat "credibility" is this author referring to, that they may be in danger of losing. Has he been living on Mars?

    Richard Aberdeen [FreedomTracks.com]

    Posted by aberdeen at 12/11/2007 @ 10:26am

  174. So we hear about the waterboarding going on for years now. We all knew it was going on. My question is what information was gained? Were terrorist plots stopped? Were new terror cells found? How did waterboarding these people protect our nation? If it stopped a nuke from coming in, then maybe it was worth it.

    Posted by abell12ct at 12/11/2007 @ 10:28am

  175. Posted by LIL 12/11/2007 @ 10:18am

    What is Sheehan polling in the California 8th district?

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 10:36am

  176. Posted by ABELL12CT 12/11/2007 @ 10:28am

    Jack Bauer saved the day again, we just don't know because it's classifeied, huh?

    BTW, where'd they get the nuke?

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 10:36am

  177. ABELL12CT: That is the scenario they are going to feed you to justify the use of torture even when the evidence reflects that it does not work. The CIA claims that they had to destroy the evidence of torture with the rationale that it would create a backlash. Doesn't it make sense then that the act of torture itself would further incite the backlash that its practice is suppposed to prevent?

    The fear tactic that it is necessary to prevent a greater disaster--while actually fanning the fires, also has been proven ineffective. It is the same shit they shovel when they claim than increasing funding for killing is "supporting the troops". They are counting on you to buy it. Don't.

    Posted by Lil at 12/11/2007 @ 10:39am

  178. goddammit!

    i thought the u.s. was supposed to represent good (albeit not perfection) in this world.

    the fact that you are debating torture as a way of solving problems instead of looking for the roots causes is sad.

    very sad.

    i mean, what would dr. m. l. king* say to all this?

    lincoln? [hrw.org]

    jefferson? [tinyurl.com]

    *What do they [Vietnam] think as we test our new weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe?

    *When evil men plot, good men must plan; when evil men burn and bomb, good men must build and bind; when evil men shout ugly words of hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love; where evil men will seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo, good men must seek to bring into being a real order of justice.

    god bless you, dr. king.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 10:48am

  179. Posted by ABELL12CT 12/11/2007 @ 10:28am

    ATTENTION!

    TERRORIST THREAT LEVEL NOW RAISED TO FUCHSIA!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 10:50am

  180. Who pray tell is Jack Bauer?

    Posted by GUPDOG 12/11/2007 @ 10:51am

    He's a make believe character in a t.v. show that saves the country from mass destruction or the president on a weekly basis. Keep in mind this is a fictional character kind of like Captain Kirk or Spock off Star Trek, but I get a sneaking suspicion that some of our rethugs posting here believe these stories to be truly, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

    So, the character, Jack Bauer, is really Dick Cheney.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 11:08am

  181. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/11/2007 @ 10:18am

    The generic term for Kant's position is deontological ethics. In the interest of disclosure, you should state clearly the basis for your ethical position: consequentialist. It can't be virtue since your answer to this absurd question would have to be different.

    Even in the consequentialist camp there are different perspectives - those that emphasize the moral consequences to the actor (Ethical Egoism), those that focus on the common good (Utilitarians), those that follow rules that lead to the greatest good for the individual or in common (Rule Consequentialism), those that want the greatest good for everyone else (Altruists), and those that seek to minimize negative consequences (Negative Consequentialism). There may be others I'm not remembering. I would guess that you are either a Utilitarian or a Negative Consequentialist.

    Now, we can properly bring some criticism to bear since we have some sense of where you are coming from. The main criticism I have of consequentialism is that we often don't know what the consequences are of our actions (you even acknowledged this weakness in your post).

    I think there is also a good argument that any heinous crime can be justified under Utilitarianism. There is no inherent morality to the position and Utilitarianism specifically doesn't account for the morality of the actor.

    For example, you may think that American soldiers fighting in World War II led to the better outcome than if American soldiers did not fight in World War II. But are you in a position to truly estimates the costs - those that died, the wounded, those who lives were destroyed by feelings of guilt over what they had done, etc. and then you would need to compare it to an alternative reality - that never happened. What of the individuals - all of whom live with these consequences and the uncertainty?

    Even in this example, you are assuming you know the outcome. What if you changed the script and said that the raping of a child had a 60% probability of saving X number of lives? That's the real problem of the Utilitarian form of consequentialism - you don't ever know like you do in this example.

    I also think you give short shift to what you believe to be Kant's position that you cannot take responsibility for the actions of others. If someone says either do this or this will happen, the moral choice is made by the person creating this situation not the person responding to it. If you tell me that I need to give you all my money or you'll kill my friend. It is still you that is killing my friend - no matter what I may do.

    I tend to a more deontological perspective. However, I do believe that there are occasions when it is better to look at consequences - such as the need to lie if the Gestapo came knocking and asking for someone I was hiding. It's not necessarily consistent - but as a moral actor, I think we are obliged to make moral judgments.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/11/2007 @ 11:35am

  182. Posted by SRJENKINS 12/11/2007 @ 11:35am

    thanks for the class!

    i say what goes around, comes around.

    you've made your bed, now sleep in it.

    sleep with dogs, and you'll wake with fleas.

    some people call it karma.

    i've more anecdotes than the 2 minutes typing time available, so.........

    i'll summarize:

    be nice.

    thanks,

    fz

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 11:42am

  183. Torture terrifies the public, and trains guards to become monsters who will obey any order.

    Authoritarians don't want to torture in order to get information, torture's purpose isn't to get information. 1st it's get your foot in the door, give the government the power to torture undesirables. One day the government will take guns away from undesirables, Conservatives don't care. Conservatives have no principles other than to sully the pleasures of the world and wreck a beautiful life for others, simply because they are unable to enjoy themselves. Conservatives are the very scum of the Earth, Conservatives Go to Hell, Conservatives are WRONG about Torture, WRONG about George Bush, Conservatives are WRONG about Iraq, and Liberals are right time and time again.

    Posted by conshame at 12/11/2007 @ 11:51am

  184. ....the "war," had next to nothing, to do with communism? It was about rice ...

    Posted by V 12/11/2007 @ 01:48am

    You have got to be Vidding! The French went into IndoChina and we followed for US rice domination?

    In 2005, US rice exports was a whoppingly miniscule $1.3 Billion....even in 1964~5 dollars, it ain't much.....and just how much lobbying money do one suppose the Rice folks can muster...Ludicrous as to shackle and send you to the Vooney Farm!

    Posted by Happy at 12/11/2007 @ 12:56pm

  185. be nice.----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/11/2007 @ 11:42am

    "...until it's time, to NOT be nice"---Dalton

    (obscure Patrick Swayze ref...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 1:03pm

  186. Zubaydah's aggressive interrogations were secretly videotaped by the CIA. The CIA said those tapes were destroyed to protect the identity of its officers.

    Today, CIA chief Gen. Michael Hayden is expected to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on why the videotapes were destroyed. --------------------------

    Sounds pretty effective to me.

    Posted by GUPDOG 12/11/2007 @ 12:22pm

    Pretty effective you say? How do you know he didn't mix lies in with the truth or just flat out lied altogether? In short, make them think he's telling them good info so that they will stop torturing him. See, that's the catch. He may have rolled over on some insignificant idiot inside their organization armed with a few maps, weapons etc. They may not have received any information whatsoever from this guy.

    But, to cover their asses, they can say that they stopped a 12/11 or 7/11. Who's to refute the evidence? Maybe you blindly trust your leaders, but I for one have come to question anything and everything this particular administration and all of it's appointees do. They've given me every reason to do so.

    I recall their solid evidence from curveball and then we found out after the fact that curveball was full of shit and they knew it. The intelligence agencies have become riddled with political morons operating blindly for their political ambititions rather than doing their jobs. Unfortunately, General Hayden is one of them. Their jobs are supposed to be to protect the United States, not do public relations visits on behalf of the White House to cover up illegal events ordered by the White House.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 1:17pm

  187. Posted by MASK 12/11/2007 @ 1:03pm

    yep.

    but i find the nicer i am the less likely "karma" is going to send the "bully" my way.

    fingers crossed.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 1:59pm

  188. Posted by MASK 12/11/2007 @ 1:03pm

    Dalton also said "Pain don't hurt". Beside a certain Zen quality, I'm not sure Swayze movies should be the source of our wisdom - although I understand the appeal.

    "This was never about the money, this was about us against the system. That system that kills the human spirit. We stand for something. We are here to show those guys that are inching their way on the freeways in their metal coffins that the human sprit is still alive." - Bodhi

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/11/2007 @ 2:00pm

  189. The deva continued,

    Now I have only one doubt to resolve and absolve:

    What is it fire cannot burn,

    nor moisture corrode,

    nor wind crush down,

    but is able to enlighten the whole world.

    The Buddha replied,

    Blessing!

    Neither fire, nor moisture, nor wind

    can destroy the blessing of good deeds,

    and blessings enlighten the whole world.

    damn! that's good.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 2:39pm

  190. Posted by SRJENKINS 12/11/2007 @ 2:00pm

    How about Bruce Campbell films?

    "Good... bad... I'm the guy with the gun."

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 2:50pm

  191. Posted by MASK 12/11/2007 @ 2:50pm

    Got me there. Bruce Campbell? I've seen maybe a handful of films he has been involved with, and don't think I could quote from any one of them.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007 @ 2:53pm

    I don't think Mask even thinks of himself as on the "left", LVL. Besides, are you telling me that you can't find any common ground with people like....ethical humanists or people that subscribe to a Kantian categorical imperative without any particular religious belief? I find that difficult to understand.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/11/2007 @ 3:31pm

  192. GUPDOG-Do you have any evidence that any terrorist attacks have been stopped based on this information?Has anyone been charged with or convicted of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act?Is there anything besides someones say so?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/11/2007 @ 3:35pm

  193. LvLiberty-Calling someone who commits a terrorist act,like Rudolph and others have done, a terrorist means that the left is morally bankrupt?Trying to claim that Rudolph isn't a terrorist would show moral bankruptcy.Particularly if you happen to be anti abortion.A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of what their cause is.It is the act and not the cause that determines what a terrorist is.Should McVeigh have been waterboarded or whatever in order to get information?Are you saying that Americans who commit terrorist acts should be treated as a criminals,but outside terrorists should be treated as something else?That would have no relevance to Judeo-Christian morality.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/11/2007 @ 3:58pm

  194. 1. Rudolph was acting alone; had no capability much less a formed ideology of actually trying to overturn our government.

    ------Okay, how about James Kopp ("Lambs of Christ") or Paul Jennings Hill ("Army of God")?

    2. Rudolph believed he was acting in the best interest of saving the lives of children who were being murdered by the abortion doctors. Whereas the terrorist doesn't hesitate to take the lives of innocents who have no connection to the authorities they are trying to overthrow.

    ----So a abortion provider isn't "innocent" enough for you? Hmmm...and yet you wonder how Rudolph, Kopp, or Peter James Knight get "influenced" into doing what they do????

    ------Islamic terrorists use "innocents attacked" (those killed in Gaza or the West Bank by Israel)....just a matter of perspective. (Of course YOU have no regard for THOSE innocents)

    "Your attempts to continue to link these dissimilar activities and the agreement by many leftists here perfectly illustrates the moral bankruptcy of the left. What compounds this moral failing is that you (and those who actually share this view) actually believe you are making a true comparison. It is why the left's and especially atheist/agnostic belief can never find common dialogue with Judeo-Christian ethics and morality.

    The disease of moral relativism has been at the vanguard of the disintegration of morality in the US and Europe over the past 100 years."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007 @ 2:53pm

    I'm sorry, did I just read that a man who was willing to vote for Rudy Giuliani (who supports "killing babies" and gay rights) because he was "tough on terrorism" (and yes you DID say that, and you know it...well before your conversion to Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee)....

    or who wants a "Think Dresden" approach to fighting terrorism or thinks that NUKING thousands if not millions of Chinese to "grant Douglas MacArthur a victory"....yet claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ (Apparently just shy of Curtis LeMay up on the cross)...

    is lecturing people on "moral relativism"!?!??!!?!?

    ROFLMAO!

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 4:17pm

  195. The answer to the question posed is yes. If what has been reported about Pelosi is true, she's finished as a leader of the party and our nation -- zero credibility.

    Posted by Prut at 12/11/2007 @ 4:27pm

  196. Besides, are you telling me that you can't find any common ground with people like....ethical humanists or people that subscribe to a Kantian categorical imperative without any particular religious belief? I find that difficult to understand.----Posted by SRJENKINS 12/11/2007 @ 3:31pm |

    That's absolutely what he'd tell you, SRJ. The man distains MORMONS for XXX's sake. The narrow range of people that he considers "moral" fits into tight little package.

    Of course it involves a morality that includes considering doctors 'fair targets'...Chinese "depots" (including cities) worthy of nuclear bombardment....some yet-to-be-named Islamic cities worthy of "Dresdenization"...

    and Pat Robertson as a sane and moral voice of Christianity!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 4:29pm

  197. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person

    More lies from Ananias? Look closely...

    1. Rudolph was acting alone; had no capability much less a formed ideology of actually trying to overturn our government.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph

    From Rudolph's own statement...

    "...the purpose of the attack on July 27 was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand. The plan was to force the cancellation of the Games, or at least create a state of insecurity to empty the streets around the venues and thereby eat into the vast amounts of money invested. "

    And, the FBI surely didn't think he was acting alone, noting that, when he was arrested, he was clean-shaven, well groomed, and wearing new sneakers, indicating he had been helped. The FBI also stated that they ..."considered Rudolph to have "had a long association with the radical Christian Identity movement, which asserts that North European whites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, God's chosen people."[17] Christian Identity is a white supremacist sect that holds that those who are not white Christians will be condemned to Hell. In the same article, the Post reported that some FBI investigators believed Rudolph may have written letters that claimed responsibility for the nightclub and abortion clinic bombings on behalf of the Army of God, a terrorist group associated with Christian Identity.

    2. Rudolph believed he was acting in the best interest of saving the lives of children who were being murdered by the abortion doctors.

    Accoring to the above referenced web site...

    "Of the bombings Rudolph committed, the most notorious was the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta on July 27, 1996, during the 1996 Summer Olympics. The blast killed spectator Alice Hawthorne and wounded 111 others. Hawthorne had attended the Olympics with her daughter because she wanted to watch the American basketball team. "

    By what stretch of the imagination does killing a mother who took her daughter to watch a basketball game, and wounding 111 others, amount to "acting in the best interest of saving the lives of children who were being murdered by the abortion doctors"?!?!?!

    Posted by Lillian at 12/11/2007 @ 4:31pm

  198. Trying to claim that Rudolph isn't a terrorist would show moral bankruptcy.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 12/11/2007 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person

    EXACTLY!

    Posted by Lillian at 12/11/2007 @ 4:33pm

  199. By what stretch of the imagination does killing a mother who took her daughter to watch a basketball game, and wounding 111 others, amount to "acting in the best interest of saving the lives of children who were being murdered by the abortion doctors"?!?!?!

    Posted by LILLIAN 12/11/2007 @ 4:31pm

    Lillian, Don't waster your time on Liverlips. The guy is so damn whacked out with his rambo type version of Jesus that there is no conversing with the man on the subject.

    Because he's a minister he believes he has an "in" above others with the God. I'd like to know if he really has had conversations with God like W, Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson and the rest of the nutcase evangelicals.

    Then we would know for sure that the man behind the curtain (Liverlips) runs a tent show circus posing as a religion.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 5:02pm

  200. YOU call it "infanticide", LVLIB.....every poll shows majorities of Americans support SOME abortion rights. It's a democracy...you lose.

    And again, did Rudolph engage in "civil disobedience" or kill an innocent man? Here's where you either STEP UP and say that that doctor "wasn't innocent" and show that you are just a hair's breadth away from Rudolph, Kopp, etc.....or you don't and contradict your own argument.

    As for "mis-quotes"....let the readers judge--

    BLOG | Posted 01/10/2007 @ 11:47am Comments for "Surge Homeward" by Katrina vanden Heuvel

    3-5 nuclear weapons against China and a threat to Russia to keep in line or they would have been next would have given the world a much better opportunity for peace than we have seen as a result of not letting MacArthur achieve the victory that we should have.-----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm

    BLOG | Posted 10/19/2007 @ 4:50pm Comments for "Moyers/Scahill Expose Blackwater"

    Tell the military to take off their safety's, find some "Patton" style leaders; also, think Dresden; tell the president, his advisors, and the military staff to quit worrying about public opinion and just destroy every enemy-no prisoners.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/21/2007 @ 10:50am

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 5:05pm

  201. Posted by HAPPY 12/11/2007 @ 12:56pm | ignore this person

    Please ... in order to accuse me of being "inaccurate," you would have to do so using numbers, and providing sources, relating to the congressional, goings on of our republic during the 60's and the 70's. Did you return with numbers, contrary, to what I represented as being the true state of affairs? No, you did not. Because you cannot, at least not, without lying. What did you do instead? Instead, you reveal the childlike nature of the foundation(s) of your ostensibly amoral (I would also say whore-like, but, I'm being nice. ) "logic." Let me prove it.

    HAPPY: "You have got to be Vidding! The French went into IndoChina and we followed for US rice domination?"

    So, as a "response," in your "mind" at least, the weight of the authority, of (to me, weak) opinion was to do the trick, I spose ...? The above was to be so overwhelming as to what, be true, no matter, and in despite of, the facts? Well, just because I, despite appearances, think there's hope for you, doesn't mean that you're not dumber than a box of fucking rocks. Indeed, you inspire one to acquire a monkey, just how well they would do in the market. Where this to be an interrogatory, based on mere opinion ... I would say that a billion dollars per year, for the indefinite future, is enough for some, to send others to war. And still win the "argument," I think.

    HAPPY: "In 2005, US rice exports was a whoppingly miniscule $1.3 Billion....even in 1964~5 dollars, it ain't much.....and just how much lobbying money do one suppose the Rice folks can muster..."

    Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and California are the largest, most important farming areas in the United States. Their government representatives plus those of the neighboring states once (for the period of the war, at least) controlled virtually every key committee in both houses of congress. They controlled ten out of sixteen standing Senate committees and seven out of twenty one standing House committees. Of these 21 House committees "rice cup" representatives controlled 7 out of the 11 most important. There is a congressional record that will show you to be an even more ostensibly, (ostensibly, because infantile, could be a perhaps more accurate depiction, of your "happy" state) crepuscular, idiot than you are, though not more than you deserve. This is the wrong forum for the attempted rule by ignorance, and mere anecdotal opinion.

    HAPPY: "Ludicrous as to shackle and send you to the Vooney Farm!"

    Not something for you to try, and accomplish personally, though, right? Something you would perhaps, send others to do?

    Posted by V at 12/11/2007 @ 5:05pm

  202. Posted by V 12/11/2007 @ 5:05pm

    Man, You slammed the door hard on Happy. Good Job!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 5:11pm

  203. LvLiberty-You are a terrorist apologist and are no different than those Catholics who excused the IRAs actions and are no different then those who try and justify Islamic terrorism.Few on the right feel moral outrage over the abortion issue.They might put a bumper sticker on their cars,but that's it.Most on the right are secretly happy that they don't have to pay more taxes for all those poor children.People on the right stood by while all those acts of genocide took place so I'm not sure what your point was with that one.Liberalism has not caused more death and destruction than anything else and you have no facts to back up that claim..You live in a hate filled fantasy world.By the way,abortion is much more of a gender issue than it is a left/right issue.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/11/2007 @ 5:11pm

  204. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007 @ 4:43pm

    How do you define life? If I put a human egg and sperm cells in a petri dish and conception occurs, is that an infant?

    This is the central question. Most people have this idea that human life begins at birth. But, they also recognize that there is a developmental process where cells becomes human and the point in which it occurs is a little ambigious, and that is why, we had the trimester and now viability standard.

    But if you want to redefine when someone is a human and thus an infant, then do us the courtesy of let us know when exactly you think cells become a human being. Is it at conception? Is it when it is viable? Is it even before conception?

    For good measure, I'd also like to hear where you stand on contraceptive use. If my wife uses a hormonal contraceptive like Norplant to prevent ovulation and which could theoretically prevent a successfully fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus, does this count as an abortion in your book?

    I recognize that there is a moral issue with abortion. But, I do not recognize eggs fertilized in a petri dish or fertilized egg cells prevented from implanting in the uterus due to hormones as abortions - or as moral problems. So, please, more details.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/11/2007 @ 5:29pm

  205. What is obvious from your remarks and those of IM and others is that you link trying to save innocent life as a moral equivalency with those who target innocent women and children for mass murder.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person

    By what stretch of the imagination does killing a mother who took her daughter to watch a basketball game, and wounding 111 others, amount to "acting in the best interest of saving the lives of children who were being murdered by the abortion doctors"?!?!?!

    Posted by LILLIAN 12/11/2007 @ 4:31pm | ignore this person

    By what stretch of the imagination does killing a mother who took her daughter to watch a basketball game, and wounding 111 others, amount to "trying to save innocent life"?

    The real tragedy...and TRAVESTY...is that so many on the right...including self-professed 'born agains'...are so willing to engage in 'moral relativity' when it comes to human life and suffering.

    Anti-abortion, but...

    pro-death penalty

    pro-war (any war involving America)

    pro-torture (if done by the CIA)

    pro-terrorism (if done by a self-described 'Christian')

    pro-xenophobia (unless ze haf der 'papers')

    pro-'lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key'

    pro-welfare cuts

    pro-'nuke-the-commies'

    pro-'let-the-planet-die-if-it-means-no-carbon-tax'

    pro-'kill-social-security-and-let-old-people-eat-cat-food'

    Posted by Lillian at 12/11/2007 @ 5:54pm

  206. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph

    "Eric Robert Rudolph (born September 19, 1966), also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American domestic terrorist,[2][3] who committed a series of bombings across the southern United States, which killed three people and injured at least 150 others."

    Posted by Lillian at 12/11/2007 @ 6:00pm

  207. Question for you and the other supporters of infanticide;

    Do you believe that those who acted in civil disobedience to free the slaves contrary to current law were terrorists?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person

    Here's a MUCH better question...

    What kind of sick, twisted, thought process equates "those who acted in civil disobedience to free the slaves" with someone who sets off a bomb in Olympic Park, killing a mother and wouding 111 people...in order "to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand"?

    Talk about a "moral vaccum"!!!

    Talk about

    Posted by Lillian at 12/11/2007 @ 6:07pm

  208. Lillian, Don't waster your time on Liverlips. The guy is so damn whacked out with his rambo type version of Jesus that there is no conversing with the man on the subject.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/11/2007 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person

    You are right Wolfgang.

    I know it is futile...but, as a Christian, it TURNS MY STOMACH that this twisted, putrid, egomaniacal, self-rightous...WINDBAG...prefesses to be a Christian...and a minister to boot!

    He is as anti-Christ as they come!

    Posted by Lillian at 12/11/2007 @ 6:18pm

  209. i must admit that i have been disappointed in pelosi since she said that 'impeachment was off the table.' it makes me ill when i see representatives whom i'd support become one of them, like wva's rockefeller. sometimes it seems the policies and politics practiced by those who govern are all in on a very sick joke and that we, the people, get the brunt of it each and every time.

    Posted by dcross at 12/11/2007 @ 7:01pm

  210. Here I agree with Michael Savage; Liberalism is a mental disease.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person

    .

    3-5 nuclear weapons against China...

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm

    .

    ...just destroy every enemy-no prisoners

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/21/2007 @ 10:50am

    .

    Matthew 7

    7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

    7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

    .

    And the most apropot concerning YOU and your postings here...

    .

    7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

    7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    Posted by Lillian at 12/11/2007 @ 7:18pm

  211. The fact that my strong feelings that both righteousness and grace are part of the Christian life arouse such anger in you...

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007 @ 6:43pm | ignore this person

    It ISN'T your "strong feelings that both righteousness and grace are part of the Christian life" that arouses anger in me...and you KNOW it!

    It is your penchant for twisting and perversion of the word of GOD...exactly as you just tried to do with my words.

    Posted by Lillian at 12/11/2007 @ 7:30pm

  212. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007 @ 6:26pm

    I want to be clear. Your position is that so long as there is no heartbeat or detectable brain waves, then it is not human life? What if there is just a heartbeat, does this count? Or are brainwaves important?

    According to the link you provided, ~58% of abortions happen in less than 9 weeks. Let's assume that your number is correct and that your number that 20% happen when there is either no heartbeat or no brain activity. Are those abortions okay?

    I take it drugs like RU-486 are not a problem. And if we could come up with a method to make sure women were aware they were pregnant immediately and could get an abortion before there was a heartbeat, you would be okay with that, or not?

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/11/2007 @ 7:36pm

  213. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007

    "Do you believe that those who acted in civil disobedience to free the slaves contrary to current law were terrorists?"

    -Are you seriously implying that murder qualifies as "civil disobedience"?

    -Ever?

    "The tragedy that so many on the left find no moral outrage in the slaughter and genocide of innocent children by the millions in this country is truly a statement indicating how low we have sunk morally in this country. Fortunately, there will be a judgment before God for this stain on our nation's history."

    -Ignoring my entirely different take on this scenario... hypothetically, if your hyperbole was based on truth would conservatives be equally guilty of glossing over the tens of millions of lives we've taken outside this country?

    -Which is related to my next question;

    "...and as I had said, you can't even consider the moral issues if there is not nation in which to still debate."

    -I am confused about the implied appeal to nationalism over globalism, as the entire world is gods creation. Morals are not worthy of consideration in times of political upheaval?

    "Liberalism has produced more death and destruction through it's moral vacuum than anything else witnessed by mankind. Here I agree with Michael Savage; Liberalism is a mental disease."

    -Any facts or numbers to back that statement up?...scratch that, do you even have a coherent hypothesis (or good bullshit story) as to the ratios of liberal caused deaths vs. conservative caused deaths?

    -Imagine. A man who believes in invisible men in the sky and the mythology of bronze age misogynists, impugning a differing view by declaration of a "mental defect". (OK you got me. That's fucking funny).

    "Secondly, I do not consider petri dishes to be real conception and would love to see the practice eliminated."

    -Tell that to all the infertile women in your congregation and see how well it goes over.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/11/2007 @ 8:33pm

  214. For that I leave the prosecution of justice up to God.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007 @ 6:03pm

    but doesn't a "jihadist" think the same thing?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 9:34pm

  215. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007 @ 7:51pm

    So, life begins once a zygote attaches itself to the uterus? It's a this point that a cell becomes human?

    I've heard arguments that at the moment of fertilization, God implants a soul. I don't know what these arguments are based on, and I have never been comfortable with them.

    I think any argument about when life starts is arbitrary. While I view claims about fetuses playing in the womb skeptically, I do agree that a child in a womb a day before birth is a child. So, we have to figure out a good moral basis to say when this begins.

    Now, the problem is that if you are going to take the stance that life begins when a zygote attaches to the uterine wall or even if you take conception as the starting point, then the question is: What is your solution to stopping unwanted pregnancies?

    See, it is all well and good to take the moral high ground. But, if half of all pregnancies are unintended, then you need to provide some other solution - preferably something that is highly effective, doesn't require significant maintenance (weekly patch, once a month shot, or multi-year implant), is easily reversible, and is free or available at nominal cost.

    Unfortunately, people that take the hard line on abortion seem to also take a similar line on birth control. The solution they offer up is abstinence or adoption. Abstinence doesn't meet our criteria because it's not effective, and one doesn't have to be a math genius to know what would happen to all those people wanting to adopt if 1 million babies were put up for adoption every year.

    So, what is the alternative? I think freely available implants or other forms of reproductive control could solve a sizable part of the problem. Could you get behind such a measure? Would you be willing to support clinics offering implants for free - if it meant fewer abortions? Do you have any other ideas about solving this problem besides abortions that will actually work - and won't turn abortions back into a black market activity?

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/11/2007 @ 9:39pm

  216. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/11/2007 @ 7:44pm | ignore this person

    While I obviously cannot know for certain since this is a anonymous blog, it seems sad that what you have just posted, you do not actually believe, except as a supposed slam.

    This is absolutely indicative of your sanctimonious crap. I DO actually believe these words of Mathew that I posted...and believe wholeheartedly that they apply perfectly to YOU!

    However in my life as imperfect as it is, I try daily to do His will.

    Judging by what you post here, you most certainly DO NOT! It is absolutely clear that you lump people together, label them as derisively as you can, then piously pronounce yourself expert on what is 'right' so you can judge, condemn, lay claim that those who's views are different are without conscience or morals. Yet you, yourself, cannot see your OWN moral relativism, defending mass murder, terrorism, war, and torture. Just look at what you've said on this one thread alone. Ordinarily, I would dismiss such views as the ravings of a lunatic. But you have chosen to couch your rantings as representative of rightsousness, claiming they reflect the word of GOD and the teachings of Christ. You are completely incapable of even acertaining the 'problem' with that, let alone making an attempt to correct it. You are much too consumed by your own ego!

    You might even find that a conservative can be and is loved by God, as strange as that seems to be in your mind.

    This is not strange to my mind at all. God loves us all. That you cannot accept that I understand this...is a perfect example of what I said above. Your ego blinds you to that fact that a liberal like me can know and love, and be loved by, God...every bit as much as YOU! Perhaps one day, you'll be able to see that, but first you'll have to "remove the mote from your own eye"...and I see no evidence that's going to happen any time soon.

    Hopefully in your search though, you will find that Christ is not just the Jesus of Love and mercy, but the Jesus of all judgment, authority, and righteousness. You cannot have one without the other and have the same Christ.

    I have already found this. Unfortunately, it appears that it is you who are confused beyond hope. Christ directed us to love each other...show mecy, kindness, forgiveness. The part about judgement and authority...that belongs to God alone (and his personage as Jesus Christ and embodyment in the Holy Spirit.) What you apparently don't understand is that...

    ...YOU AREN'T JESUS!

    ...no matter how many times you claim to have been 'resurrected'!

    Posted by Lillian at 12/11/2007 @ 11:23pm

  217. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and California are the largest, most important farming areas in the United States. Their government representatives plus those of the neighboring states once (for the period of the war, at least) controlled virtually every key committee in both houses of congress.......

    Posted by V 12/11/2007 @ 5:05pm

    OK, I'll concede that for every conspiracy, there are believers...and you bought into the Vietnam War for Rice Conspiracy and brought forth the Congressional angle.....

    You need to work much, much harder to spread your belief in the evil Rice-Agricultural-Complex.....since no one I know, or on this board so it seems, is a co-believer w/you! One is indeed, the Loneliest Number....but unique!

    Posted by Happy at 12/12/2007 @ 12:30am

  218. Posted by HAPPY 12/12/2007 @ 12:30am

    ya, but once the she-bang had started, these rice dudes, i'm sure, become a vocal cheerleading squad for the agent orangization of vietnam.

    you know,

    where there's an angle..................

    someone's gotta be collect some pretty hefty paycheques if you consider what's been spent in iraq.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 01:17am

  219. osted by HSUBFOOLS 12/10/2007 @ 3:00pm

    Okay, what does "a strong hand" for Sheehan mean?

    Posted by MASK 12/10/2007 @ 3:45pm

    That Pelosi screws up, looses support. DUH.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/12/2007 @ 03:59am

  220. He is as anti-Christ as they come!

    Posted by LILLIAN 12/11/2007 @ 6:18pm

    Bingo. Lillian, you just hit the nail on the head. What does the passage say...."beware of false prophets...."

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/12/2007 @ 07:30am

  221. John Brown, abolition terrorist

    Frederick Douglas, non-terrorist abolitionist.

    Eric Rudolph, terrorist

    "civil disobedience" does not include blowing things up .

    grrr, kill, kill.

    I will ask one more time, LUVVY, how many unwanted children can we sign you, and your parishioners, up for? We need not even start with pre-abortion, there are over 80,000 children languishing in foster care. Step up. Not one, not two, ALL of them, then we can discuss abortion.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/12/2007 @ 07:47am

  222. I will ask one more time, LUVVY, how many unwanted children can we sign you, and your parishioners, up for? We need not even start with pre-abortion, there are over 80,000 children languishing in foster care. Step up. Not one, not two, ALL of them, then we can discuss abortion.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/12/2007 @ 07:47am

    CRAB, It's fine for people like Liverlips to point their fingers at people for standing up for abortion rights and call us killers. But, as many have pointed out here, a good portion of those so worried about the life of the unwanted baby don't give a crap about the baby once he or she is born.

    I vowed when I was younger that I would not bring another child into this world because there are so many children without a home, parents to feed and cloth them etc. I stuck to that vow and have adopted children. Their lives are indeed sacred to me and I would do just about anything for them.

    I grow tired of listening to these "good, moral,upstanding," hypocrites putting more value on potential life than they do on existing life. They need to pull their heads out of their asses and look at reality. We have more children in the world now than we can deal with. Kids are literally starving to death or dying of disease because they have no medical care.

    Most of the pro-life folks bury their heads in the sand and pretend these kids don't exist because they are not on the same continent and so the starving and death continues. But, hey, as long as they can feel good about stopping some teenager from getting birth control, then they can believe they are on a mission for God! lol

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/12/2007 @ 08:03am

  223. That Pelosi screws up, looses support. DUH.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/12/2007 @ 03:59am

    Enough for Sheehan to win?...or again, just enough for her to not lose by less than 20%?

    Care to say specifically?

    Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 10:25am

  224. Enough for Sheehan to win?...or again, just enough for her to not lose by less than 20%?

    Care to say specifically?

    Posted by MASK 12/12/2007 @ 10:25am

    MASK,

    We might be better off if Pelosi loses her seat to a rethug. If the dems control the majority still and a different speaker of the house is appointed, at least maybe the new speaker will learn not to take impeachment off the table. I don't care if it's a dem or rethug, part of Congress' job is to move to impeach a president if that president crosses the line, not hold his hand and help him cross the line.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/12/2007 @ 10:30am

  225. Folks, all this round and round with LVLIB is of course pointless...

    the fact is, he doesn't want guys like Rudolph, Kopp, Hill, etc. labelled "terrorists" because to apply HIS (LL) STANDARD of what to DO about "terrorists" and their GROUPS...

    lays open a lot of HIS friends to the same scrutiny (possibly more) that Islamic groups in the US and abroad have received.

    If abortion clinic bombers are terrorists (which they are)...then just as "any Muslim should be suspect" (in the LVLIB mind-set), so then should ANY "pro-lifer" be suspect.

    Take any post he's made about terrorism and Islam. Replace the words "terrorist" with "Rudolph" or "Hill"...and "Islam" with "pro-life Christianity"...and he slits his own throat.

    Plus as seen in his "civil disobediance" reference with Eric Rudolph....you know that "deep down" he's not REALLY that un-supportive of what Rudolph or the others did. Just like that small percent of radical Muslims who offer lip service against Islamic terrorism and say they support them being stopped, but then offer apologia for the "cause" they're fighting for....

    there is a small percent (fortunately) of guys like LVLIB, who say "Sure Rudolph should be locked up, not saying he shouldn't...but while his actions were a BIT extreme, his motive was right...and the guy he killed not COMPLETELY un-worthy of assassination"

    Again, the man supports wholesale bombing (and nuclear bombardment) of millions of "them"....why should he be squeamish about a "misguided fellow" killing some "baby killers"?

    Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 10:33am

  226. Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/12/2007 @ 10:30am

    Sorry, WOLF....odds are astronomical enough for Cindy Sheehan, much less a SF Republican.

    Despite HSUB's subtle "hints" at Pelosi losing favor....he won't come out and predict a Sheehan win (his track record would certainly say he would...but maybe he's not totally delusional)....and he's right not to.

    At best, Pelosi wins by ONLY 70%...maybe 7% down from her worst showing back in 1988...but that's it. Sheehan still loses.

    And come 2010, with Bush gone and (one way or the other) Iraq winding down under a Democratic President....Sheehan has nothing much to run on and Pelosi wins again in '10 by 80-85% and Cindy is nothing more than a joke/memory to Speaker Nancy.

    Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 10:36am

  227. LvLiberty-You are a terrorist apologist and if you read your views you'll discover that you share many views about the liberal west and how God will punish us that radical islam has..You people even blame gays,and not radical islam,for 9/11.Just as you deny that Rudolph is a terrorist radical islam denies that they are terrorists and,like you,make up nonsense in order to claim to not be terrorists.You agree with Rudolph's cause so you pretend he isn't a terrorist just like Muslims who support radical islam.Sorry,but you don't get to make up your own definition of terrorists just because you agree with the cause.Rudolph was not trying to stop genocide and that was truly lame and dishonest,but like those who support radical islam,you make up reasons for the violence.Like you,Bush,Cheney,etc,Rudolph is a baby killer.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/12/2007 @ 10:43am

  228. And come 2010, with Bush gone and (one way or the other) Iraq winding down under a Democratic President....Sheehan has nothing much to run on and Pelosi wins again in '10 by 80-85% and Cindy is nothing more than a joke/memory to Speaker Nancy.

    Posted by MASK 12/12/2007 @ 10:36am

    Probably true enough, but still, Pelosi should no longer stand as speaker of the house. She aided and comforted an administration hell bent on pissing all over Americans and the constitution. She may be reelected by her constituents, but that doesn't or shouldn't put her back in the position as speaker of the house.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/12/2007 @ 10:52am

  229. Et tu, Pelosi? We have two parties in the pretend-republic that rubber stamp Caesar's decrees. Ben Franklin was right that we'd have a Republic only if we can keep it.

    Posted by masussman at 12/12/2007 @ 11:10am

  230. Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/12/2007 @ 10:52am

    All that may be true, WOLF....but it doesn't change anything. She'll be easily re-elected (maybe not as easy as 2006, but easier than 90% of politicians)....and keep the Speakership. (She won it too easily, and once in, only an electoral loss or MAJOR scandal gets one out).

    And by 2010, she can probably safely ride on the "That's water under the bridge" train once Bush is gone and Iraq is "winding down".

    Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 12:46pm

  231. Perhaps this is why the cry for impeachment against Bush and Cheney has died down on the Left? Perhaps Nancy P, Rockefeller and others on the Left have known for a long time what's been going on and have been complicit by their silence, therefore, guilty of impeachable acts as well.

    Where is the courage to do what is right? I risked my career, my home and the ability to care for my wife and then 6-year old son by testifying in federal court just 20 months ago against my employer. I did so to protect a young child. One voiceless child! 20 months later I am still at risk of losing my job because the Republican commissioners in my county hate me for my blowing the whistle on the madness that exists within my agency.

    I did't get any offers to write a book or to sell my story to the tabloids. I didn't make any friends at my agency and in fact even lost a few former supporters. My union, SEIU PSSU, stood by helplessly as I was persecuted by my employer. I received a few congrats from foster parents, colleagues and friends and even some money was raised after I was suspended but overall, I took a brutal beating (metaphor) for what I did and gained little outside the knowledge that I did the right thing. And I'd do it again.

    I don't care if the law says they can't speak about what was said in these meetings because if what was said was criminal, each member of Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution not some law that protects the evil.

    Do the right thing Congress! Do the right thing Democrats or get out of the way so someone with some courage can.

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 12/12/2007 @ 1:06pm

  232. I don't care if the law says they can't speak about what was said in these meetings because if what was said was criminal, each member of Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution not some law that protects the evil.

    Do the right thing Congress! Do the right thing Democrats or get out of the way so someone with some courage can.

    Posted by LUCEM FERRE 12/12/2007 @ 1:06pm

    Good man.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/12/2007 @ 2:07pm

  233. LvLiberty-I have a very realistic view of Christianity and do not believe that Rudolph was acting for god anymore than I believe that jihadists are acting for god.Rudolph is a terrorist and so is his god.Fortunately,these terrorists gods don't actually exist.The real God doesn't need a Rudolph or jihadists to act for them nor does the real God allow a 9/11 to happen in some ludicrous hope that people figure out that gays really caused it..If you had been born in a Muslim country then you would be a jihadi supporter since you share so many of their views and are the same type of person.It is only the accident of birth that separates you from them and not what is in your heart.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/12/2007 @ 2:36pm

  234. That is the reality. Now, that said, how many of us think they can make the call between torture and an event that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands of people?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/12/2007 @ 2:22pm

    reality?

    which event that costs hundreds of thousands of lives are you talking about.

    sounds like you've been watching 24 in order to catch up on reality.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 2:45pm

  235. LVLIBERTY1:

    You said:

    I can't say that I find from the things you have stated in the past year that you have a view of Christianity that even approaches that of historic Biblical Christianity. That doesn't make you a bad person but it brings into question your actual knowledge of the Bible and Chrisitianity.

    My response:

    How on earth does anything in the history of the Christian church over the past 2000 years bear any resemblance to ANYTHING Christ taught? Furthermore, I have yet to see anything emanating from your posts that represents Christ's teachings any better than that same history. You are cut from the same cloth... hypocrisy and hubris.

    You said:

    I never said that either Rudolph was acting for God or that God needed someone like Rudolph, nor do I believe that.

    If you do not believe that God punishes nations and peoples for abandoning His righteousness, then you truly haven't read the Bible (or simply don't believe what is written).

    My response:

    Last I checked, the Old Testament and New Testament deviated on this point. Strange, I was under the impression that God had a change of heart and was a lot less angry and a lot more loving.

    You said:

    Other than having no doubt in the God I worship and faith that He does reveal Himself via His word to man, there is little that is similar to Muslims and myself. Unlike Muslim clerics, I don't give messages to my congregants encouraging violence against others; I don't promise them paradise and virgins for killing themselves and others; I don't tell them it is part of their faith to conquer other nations in the name of God and subdue the residents of those nations into submission to us and our God; I don't promote polygamy as a right of faithful men; I don't call Jews "monkeys and pigs", nor does my Bible; I don't put stone or beat women for being raped; I don't cut off the hands of thieves;

    My response:

    Wait a tick. You have been supporting torture, pre-emptive (of what, I am not sure) invasion of a sovereign nation, the use of mercenaries in war, the undermining of any sort of public support for the poor, disenfranchised, and indigent, the wholesale destruction of the civilian infrastructure of not one, but three separate nations (Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon)... tell me again how you are different from the fundamentalist Muslims?

    Oh, and you have no doubt about God? Then your faith is a false faith. The church fathers, and countless theologians have dealt with this issue since the inception of the Christian church. Without doubt, there can be no faith. You, sir, are a charlatan and a mountebank.

    You said:

    I could go on for pages...your comment just represents the ideological animosity towards Christians who choose to serve God in the same way as the 1st century church, according to the Bible.

    My response:

    You have no idea what that even means... you are simply regurgitating what you have been spoon-fed by your mega-church pastors and televangelists. Stop trying to make theological arguments. You fail miserably.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/12/2007 @ 3:48pm

  236. Posted by HAPPY 12/12/2007 @ 12:30am | ignore this person

    Your concessions (in point of fact, non-sequiturs ...), are irrelevant to the point. And I did not respond to you for consensus. You provide the same revelation, and insight as you did at your first attempt at a response. Which would require a response a bit higher on the same spiral ... but I will not call you childish again, as I have seen a child apply more intellect in responses than I have received, here.

    "You need to work much, much harder to spread your belief in the evil Rice-Agricultural-Complex.....since no one I know, or on this board so it seems, is a co-believer w/you!

    Belief? Please .... Also, I said nothing, about a complex as there was no need. The point being made when I responded with verifiable data, and conclusions based on verifiable numbers. It is you taking them and turning them based on your need (to be right, even when you are demonstrably wrong) for willful denial, and a revealed, immature, nonsense belief, that truth requires consensus ... thereby regurgitating a house of cards, straw fantasy, in its place.

    "One is indeed, the Loneliest Number....but unique!"

    Thank you, though lonely is, again, but your projection ....

    What I said is easily, proved wrong ... it would, or it should, be easy for one versed in finance to look up the data I referenced, and do so. Do that, or do yourself a favour and STFU.

    Posted by V at 12/12/2007 @ 3:52pm

  237. LvLiberty-I have studied the Bible,Judaism,and Christianity extensively and am quite aware that the god of Abraham punishes nations,entire families for the actions of one member,punishes the Jews for thousands of years for something someone else did,etc. and do not believe that God engages in that behaviour.As I have stated before,the God of my experience is quite different and is more like God as viewed by Taoism which is what attracted me to that in the first place.I don't go by all of that,either,however.I do believe in Jesus and believe that the finding of the gnostic gospels all,but proves the existence of the person.It's unlikely that two different points of view about this person and his teachings would exist unless the person had existed,but I have a different view of him than you do.My interest is in Spiritualism and Mysticism and not religion.I don't follow any religion.I follow my heart.By the way I'm anti abortion and used to be actively anti abortion(anything non violent),but still think Rudolph is a terrorist.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/12/2007 @ 4:19pm

  238. STFU.

    Posted by V 12/12/2007 @ 3:52pm

    ;-))))))....

    Sorry....uh, just vidding!

    Posted by Happy at 12/12/2007 @ 4:26pm

  239. FREIHEIT:

    Sarcasm is fun.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/12/2007 @ 4:36pm

  240. FREIHEIT:

    I was referring to your 24 reference. LOL.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/12/2007 @ 4:49pm

  241. That Pelosi screws up, looses support. DUH.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/12/2007 @ 03:59am

    Enough for Sheehan to win?...or again, just enough for her to not lose by less than 20%?

    Care to say specifically?

    Posted by MASK 12/12/2007 @ 10:25am

    Frita calls the psychic line on a regular basis too--- so deep is her insecurity...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/12/2007 @ 5:06pm

  242. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/12/2007 @ 2:00pm

    You can't curse a cop and say you don't need him, and then wonder why he doesn't protect you when you need it. That is hypocrisy.

    Which is why "turning the other cheek" means you don't call the cops or rely on the law.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/12/2007 @ 9:08pm

  243. LUVVY, good for you with your work with foster children. That is about 15 kids. 79,985 to go, then we can begin a debate on abortion. I wouldn't think that would be so tough, what with millions of evangelicals running about.

    FREI, do you have information that torturing a suspect lead to the saving of tens of thousands of lives?

    Do you have information that a single nookyular plot has been uncovered using torture? Do you disagree with the Armed Services and the FBI that torture is ineffective in obtaining useful intel? Upon what do you base your disagreement?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/12/2007 @ 10:19pm

  244. I heard today that one terrorist caved in about 5 seconds of water boarding. The CIA agent speaking, on NPR, was appalled that such techniques were applied, but said that in his opinion the terrorist would not have spilt the beans any other way. If a guy can take only 5 seconds of pain, why would he have held out under acceptable psych/physical interrogations measures such as temp control, sleep deprivation and psychological manipulation? By acceptable, I mean methods that conform to DoD rules.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/12/2007 @ 10:25pm

  245. only 5 seconds.

    He must have been a neo-con Islamist.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/12/2007 @ 10:26pm

  246. Hey, CrabWalk, didn't the agent also say he was nowhere close when those 5 seconds (or was it minutes), took place, and wasn't even in the same country and doing a different assignment?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/12/2007 @ 10:53pm

  247. And they're for it.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/12/2007 @ 4:53pm

    O beautiful for spacious skies,

    For amber waves of grain,

    For purple mountain majesties

    Above the fruited plain!

    America! America!

    God shed his grace on thee

    And crown thy good with brotherhood

    From sea to shining sea!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 11:31pm

  248. And crown thy good with brotherhood

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 11:33pm

  249. Posted by FREIHEIT 12/13/2007 @ 12:30am

    dunno,

    ask the LADY who wrote the words:

    America the Beautiful

    Words by Katharine Lee Bates

    Melody by Samuel Ward

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 01:30am

  250. He must have been a neo-con Islamist.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/12/2007 @ 10:26pm

    Or subjected to the transforming power of baptism.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/13/2007 @ 03:52am

  251. Posted by LRJONES4 12/13/2007 @ 03:52am

    Both are an easy out.

    I could go on for pages...your comment just represents the ideological animosity towards Christians who choose to serve God in the same way as the 1st century church, according to the Bible. LUVVY

    Bishop Sponge:

    I simply try to combine two things. First, my identity as a Christian who finds Jesus a doorway into the transcendence and wonder of God and second, my citizenship in the 21st century which means that I cannot think as a 1st century Christian, the time in which the Bible was written; a 4th century Christian, the time in which the creeds were formed; a13th century Christian, the time in which current liturgies took shape or a 16th century Christian, the time in which the Reformation occurred. I must be a 21st century Christian. That means I have to force my Christian faith into the thought forms dictated by the 21st century. In the process much of the traditional understanding of Christianity, shaped as it was by the mindset of the 1st Century must inevitably be sacrificed as no longer either relevant or possible.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/13/2007 @ 07:25am

  252. What else from the first century do you want to take into your life? Bronze tools? Open sewers? Monarchal rule? Lack of medicine? The transportation of the 1st century? 1st century attitudes towards women and slaves slaves? Agricultural processes? Building codes? Monetary policy? Food preparation? Clothes?

    But, the fundamental understanding of the Universe from the 1st century you are willing to accept? An understanding that has been translated, mistranslated, copied by illiterates, changed multiple times, interpreted by hundreds of factions in hundreds of different ways.

    Yep, a solid foundation.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/13/2007 @ 07:32am

  253. As I see it, the Islamist fundies want us to back to the 12th century. Luvvy wants the morality of the 1st. As bizarre as it seems, the Islamic fundies are way more modern than the Baptist fundies.

    Scary American Taliban.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/13/2007 @ 07:36am

  254. Um, my point here is that we Americans are not necessarily too bent out of shape at the thought of torture. A lot of that, in my opinion, is due to our indifference to things that require us to think.FREI,

    Gee, Americans fat, lazy and uncaring? America Hater.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/13/2007 @ 07:40am

  255. But I was serious when I said most Americans aren't really too worried about this issue.

    I'd like most of us to think a little harder about it. But that kind of heavy lifting isn't encouraged in our evolving culture.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/12/2007 @ 4:46pm

    FREIHIET,

    Have you ever heard the old story of the police beating a confession out of someone only to find out later that the person didn't do the crime, but admitted to the crime to stop the beating? The same can be said of waterboarding.

    There are other techniques to get people to talk. Screwing with their minds is much more effective than torture because, for example, if you befriend them, or turn one of them against another, then you can pretty much manipulate their frame of mind.

    That probably does take time, but getting bogus information from torturing doesn't save anyone. Has the CIA come out and said exactly what information they got from this guy that saved lives? Did the stop some dastardly dead, or just arrest some idiot with a few weapons, maps and a Koran?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/13/2007 @ 07:43am

  256. And most Americans just don't know what to think about torture in our name.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/13/2007 @ 10:14am

    no, and they didn't know lead was toxic till experts in the field pointed it out.

    and experts say torture doesn't work.

    the people with the actual responsibility are the same people who started an unnecessary war that has killed untold thousands and left many more people with their lives destroyed.

    not to mention the ever-flushing dollar.

    so, i wouldn't be too confident in their judgement.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 10:45am

  257. Ms Pelosi should resign as Speaker. The people of her district should send her packing.

    I'm past tired of people with Ds beside their name that do not stand for democratic or Democratic principles.

    Posted by NoPCZone at 12/13/2007 @ 11:12am

  258. You seem pretty clear torture doesn't work. I don't disagree, but I also don't have enough data to prove we're right in that assumption.

    My point is those people actually responsible for keeping US citizens safe don't seem to have your certitude. And most Americans just don't know what to think about torture in our name.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/13/2007 @ 10:14am

    I just did my time in the military. In basic training, which pretty much was a joke to me after playing football, baseball and basketball as a kid, we had one guy successfully kill himself and another almost pull a suicide off. All this from just being yelled at with minimal sleep deprivation.

    When people start screwing with your sleep to the point you don't know which way is up and down and you add the fact that those people are making your life miserable in any and every way possible, it doesn't take long for you to long for any type of friend.

    So, it would be pretty easy to plant an informant who appeared to be going through the same hell as the person being "under interrogation" to be that friend.

    Another way would be to play one person off another. Make it look like one detainee is getting preferential treatment over the others which would in turn make the others think that that detainee leaked information.

    Those are just two straight forward ways to get to detainees and you have to know that the CIA has people who do nothing but figure out ways to screw with people to get them to do what they want.

    There isn't any reason to bring people to the brink of death to get informaton out of them. I sure as hell don't want torture done in my name.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/13/2007 @ 11:35am

  259. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/13/2007 @ 11:23am

    see you in hell.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 11:48am

  260. see you in hell.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/13/2007 @ 11:48am

    Frosty,

    From reading your posts, you would be one of the last ones posting here to go to hell. It would appear that you wouldn't harm a fly in good conscience.

    Then, on the other side we have MBB Condoning torture because they've done it for 100's of years.

    They also thought the world was flat for 100's of years. They used to think that music, science and mathematics were the work of the devil.

    Just because something has been in practice for long periods of time doesn't make it correct, it just means it's been practiced for long periods of time.

    Evidently MBB would go jump off a cliff if everyone else was doing it.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/13/2007 @ 12:14pm

  261. Posted by FREIHEIT 12/12/2007 @ 10:58pm

    There are plenty of references to torture in popular culture these days that have nothing to do with 24. Movies would include Syriana, Pan's Labyrinth, Rendition, Rescue Dawn, Last King of Scotland, and on and on. Even made it into the new James Bond. I'd say it is very much on people's minds, and rarely, are the "good guys" depicted as engaging in the practice.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/13/2007 @ 10:14am

    We know that torture occurred and is occurring - see Administration of Torture, Abu Ghraib pictures, discussion on "waterboarding", etc.. I'll leave aside the fact that torture is morally wrong, a public relations nightmare and illegal (against ratified treaties we have signed). Let's just look at effectiveness at getting truthful information. Here's the details from Educing Information - Interrogation: Science and Art.

    "...Dr. Borum's finding that "There is little or no research to indicate whether [coercive] techniques succeed…. [B]ut the preponderance of reports seems to weigh against their effectiveness…. Psychological theory…and related research suggest that coercion or pressure can actually increase a source's resistance and determination not to comply (emphasis in the original)."

    http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

    Ticking bomb scenarios? So long as the victim is less afraid of death than anything you can do to them, there's not a whole lot that you can really do to get the information you want. Even if they are afraid, what's to stop them from giving you the wrong information to keep you busy until what you are trying to stop happens? That's right, there's nothing.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/13/2007 @ 12:20pm

  262. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/13/2007 @ 11:23am

    What you have is an anecdote, one that is seriously tripping off my bullshit filter - anonymous source, third party account, etc.

    When you dig a little deeper, you start finding names and critiques. Try this Slate article for instance that puts a name on it, John Kiriakou, and makes the following observation:

    "...his account of Abu Zubaydah's intelligence value contradicts Ron Suskind's 2006 book The One Percent Doctrine, which reported that Abu Zubaydah was borderline retarded and didn't have more than minor, tactical information about al-Qaeda."

    http://www.slate.com/id/2179780/nav/fix/

    I don't think an anecdotal example of torture done on someone who was "border-line retarded" is a good measurement for the effectiveness of an interrogation technique. Do you?

    As for your arguments about history, check out the link to Educing Information above if you want to evaluate your opinions in light of the scientific evidence, history and facts.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/13/2007 @ 12:37pm

  263. Wether I'd tolerate others doing it in my name depends on the level of the waterboardee's determination to kill or other Americans, and my ability to control my government's policies.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/13/2007 @ 2:57pm

    Well, at least you are logically consistent, with your belief that controlling your own government is not an inalienable right.

    Ever read the constitution? Or anything other than your bible?

    For the record, the constitution was formed as a political document, with proper methods for revision.

    The bible was written by crazy people and edited, repeatedly over the centuries, by fascist political leaders, for political effect.

    Two different concepts for you to digest.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/13/2007 @ 3:51pm

  264. Frosty,

    From reading your posts, you would be one of the last ones posting here to go to hell. It would appear that you wouldn't harm a fly in good conscience.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/13/2007 @ 12:14pm

    i've got a webcam.................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 4:45pm

  265. Do you think intelligent people would continue to do something for hundreds of years if it didn't work?

    by MBB

    you mean like smoke?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 4:54pm

  266. Not even a giggle for my Cheney comment?

    by MBB

    i try to keep my comments about mr cheney to a minimum.

    being a foreigner and all..................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 4:57pm

  267. The issue on torture is not that it doesn't work. True, it doesn't, but that's irrelevant.

    The issue is, quite simply, that torture is immoral and illegal. Period.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/13/2007 @ 5:09pm

  268. You know a point is going to be good when it references Braveheart, or any other Mel Gibson movie or action. /sarcasm off

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/13/2007 @ 5:14pm

  269. Wether I'd tollerate others doing it in my name depends on the level of the waterboardee's determination to kill or other Americans, and my ability to control my government's policies.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/13/2007 @ 2:57pm

    MBB, Therein lies the problem. We don't know what our government is doing in our name and we don't have any control over what they do. This particular White House is more secretive than even the CIA. That's scary.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/13/2007 @ 5:15pm

  270. Secrecy is the enemy of democracy.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/13/2007 @ 5:26pm

  271. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/13/2007 @ 11:23am | ignore this person

    But some homeless guy on the subway tells you that the only reason America tortures muslims is because Dick Cheney likes to masturbate to the vidoes and you accept it as gospel. I mean, how much proof do you need?

    Wow, this is just completely stunning - in the most stunningly obvious, bass ackwards way!!!

    How about let's meet some of these "homeless guy(s) on the subway" shall we...

    Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected.

    Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think [torture] is a good idea."

    Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information."

    Former Vietnam MI agent and FBI hostage negotiator Clint Van Zandt - But what about real-life torture? Does it really help us gain information from our enemies?

    My experience suggests it largely doesn't. I was a Military Intelligence (MI) agent in Vietnam in 1966. I watched as we worked to dehumanize the enemy, some calling them "gooks," "slopes," and other terms designed to differentiate between them and us, the good guys and the bad guys.

    The fact is that no "trial by ordeal," be it physical, psychological or chemical will insure that we can: (1) actually get information from the detainee, and (2) guarantee that what ever information extracted is true, a reality with which most interrogation "experts" will agree.

    Retired Army Lt. Col. Terry Daly, a veteran of military intelligence operations in the Vietnam War - I have yet to speak with an experienced, successful interrogator who advocates mistreating their subjects. As personally satisfying as it may seem to beat the hell out of detainees, it doesn't usually get you what you want -- accurate, reliable information that you can trust and upon which you can act.

    In Vietnam the Provincial Interrogation Centers routinely used skilled Vietnamese interrogators to obtain accurate, detailed information on the organization, personnel and structure of the Vietnamese Communist Infrastructure -- exactly the type of information Guantanamo should be producing by the pound on radical Islamic terrorism.

    I think we make a major strategic error when we support such would-be macho men as we see in this administration showing their supposed toughness by advocating torture, when we know it doesn't work.

    There are more of course, many, many more...but for MBB, I'll go out on a limb right now and say that, no matter how many experts we post here...

    ...it will never be enough to convince him.

    Posted by Lillian at 12/13/2007 @ 6:55pm

  272. Do you think intelligent people would continue to do something for hundreds of years if it didn't work?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/13/2007 @ 2:39pm | ignore this person

    This is a joke, right? Like the inane 'Cheney masturbation' thing, right?

    http://www.theglasgowstory.com/image.php?inum=TGSJ00023

    A Glasgow barber surgeon's bleeding bowl. The shape cut out of the bowl fitted the flexed elbow of a patient. The vein was lanced and the blood ran into the bowl.

    Barber surgeons were common throughout Britain from the Middle Ages until Victorian times. The barbers' skill in using small sharp knives was suited to minor operations such as bleeding or the removal of absesses. Despite their lack of training in medical science they were popular due to their relatively low fees.

    Barbers were admitted to the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow in 1602 but restricted to the treatment of simple wounds and conditions. They were removed from the Faculty in 1722.

    .

    .

    from the Middle Ages until Victorian times

    .

    .

    hundreds of years

    Posted by Lillian at 12/13/2007 @ 7:01pm

  273. Or how about a more 'appropriate' example.

    http://atheism.about.com/od/christianityviolence/ig/Christian-Persecutio n-Witches/Witches-Satan-Court.htm

    For hundreds of years, Jews, heretics, witches...all tortured...alll 'confessed'...

    ...for hundreds of years.

    Posted by Lillian at 12/13/2007 @ 7:06pm

  274. Gee...did that torture 'work'?

    Posted by Lillian at 12/13/2007 @ 7:07pm

  275. Only if you define torture 'works" as inducing the person being tortured to say whatever he/she thinks the torturer wants to hear.

    If what the torturer is after is acurate and actionable information?...

    ...not so much.

    Posted by Lillian at 12/13/2007 @ 7:09pm

  276. LILLIAN:

    You are trying to argue with a moron. Proceed with caution.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/13/2007 @ 7:11pm

  277. For heaven's sake, what, what, WHAT induces otherwise rational human beings...

    ...to defend TORTURE!?!?!

    .

    .

    momentary stupidy?

    mass hysteria?

    blind loyalty?

    what?

    Posted by Lillian at 12/13/2007 @ 7:12pm

  278. LILLIAN:

    In all honesty, it's the difference between the ends justifying the means, and the means never being justified, no matter the ends they produce. Essentially, it boils down to what is called situational morality, or more commonly, moral relativism.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/13/2007 @ 7:20pm

  279. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/13/2007 @ 7:20pm

    True.

    But, equally important, even if you were a "ends justify the means" type, you would still have to be willfully ignorant on the topic.

    Otherwise you'd realize the ends weren't even reached, means be damned.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/13/2007 @ 7:41pm

  280. MALCONTENT:

    True... I guess I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

    No, actually I wasn't. Whether torture works or not is, as I wrote earlier, irrelevant. It's a moral and legal issue, rather than an efficacy issue.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/13/2007 @ 7:47pm

  281. Darin, please reference the Army Interrogation manual I have reprinted here, along with Lil's excellent comments from professionals. Turn off 24 and Cheneycom.

    You guys believe whatever the gubment says, don't you?

    Byron York! Give me a break. Look up his predictions on Iraq then get back to us about his accuracy.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/13/2007 @ 7:57pm

  282. Posted by CRABWALK 12/13/2007 @ 7:57pm

    It seems Crabs that your intelligence organisations can't get it right at any level (Iraq (yesterday, today and most likely tomorrow) Iran (same time frames)) so how would they know what works and what doesn't?

    That of course didn't occur to those here who quoted those who obviously don't know what works and are themselves part of the massive failures of the US Intelligence agencies. That's what the good book calls "the blind leading the blind".

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/14/2007 @ 02:40am

  283. Posted by LRJONES4 12/14/2007 @ 02:40am

    you are writing of the CIA, right. Then you are probably correct, as they are the ones using these techniques and they are the ones that set up prisons in the old iron curtain countries. But, in this case, I am referencing the troops, and as we know we are supposed to "listen o the troops". Unless their experience differs from our preconceived conclusions, then we listen to a journalist over at National Review.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/14/2007 @ 07:17am

  284. On a related topic,I strongly recommend Mr.John Nichols read the article on "waterboarding" by Gary Benoit published on 12-14-07 by The new american on Antiwar site.The article gives a much deeper understanding of "waterboarding" as a form of tortue.Your article is informative,Thank you.

    Posted by hakim atiya at 12/14/2007 @ 10:09am

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
46 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
56 Comments

» The Beat

House Rebels Force Fed Audit, Real Economy Onto Agenda | Frank's Financial Services Committee becomes focal point for revolts by members who worry about powerful banks and unemployment.
John Nichols
28 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
204 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
59 Comments