Carol Platt Liebau: A Voice of Defeat

Friday, September 22, 2006

A Voice of Defeat

Here is how the left justifies its position that it's better for Americans to die than for terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Muhammed to be "coerced" into revealing terror plots.



Blogger Josh said...

It baffles the mind how much disception you've managed to stuff into that sentence. The situation you describe is absolutely nothing like reality.

You make it seem like we have people who we know are terrorist masterminds in custody, and only by torturing them can we obtain information necessary to save American lives.

In reality, many of the men in our custody in Iraq and Gitmo are only suspected terrorists. This guy was held in Gitmo for years.

I was locked up and mistreated for being in the wrong place at the wrong time during America’s war in Afghanistan. Like hundreds of Guantánamo detainees, I was never a terrorist or a soldier. I was never even on a battlefield. Pakistani bounty hunters sold me and 17 other Uighurs to the United States military like animals for $5,000 a head. The Americans made a terrible mistake.

Again, it is uncertain whether or not many of the men in our custody are even terrorists. This is why it is incredibly dishonest to frame the debate as "Should we torture terrorists?"

8:26 AM  
Blogger dodger said...

Classic leftist misdirection. Can't win the argument directly so let's argue whether we should torture or not. Since everyone is against torture, guess what, you win. Problem is nobody is being tortured, nor is torture being proposed by anyone. Duh!

8:40 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Josh said, "In reality, many of the men in our custody in Iraq and Gitmo are only suspected terrorists. This guy was held in Gitmo for years."

So what? The care and living conditions while in American custody, is FAR better than what he had in Afghanistan! "Club Gitmo" is a paradise!

8:43 AM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Have we ever fought an enemy who respected the Geneva Convention? Germany and Japan didn't, The Chinese -- err North Koreans didn't the Chinese, err the North Kietnamese didn't, the Islamofascists obviously do not.

TRhen what is the use of the geneve convention?

9:49 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Flomblog, If one reads the Geneva Conventions, they'll see that they really don't offer any definitions for torture, abuse, rough treatment, etc. The vagueness of these documents has me wondering what their purpose really was. It is amazing and amusing to me to hear and read about, on this blog, "the abuses of the Geneva Conventions!,"
Josh, Editor and others,
Here is a link for them to look at.

10:25 AM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

Pitts makes a great case for something that exists only in his fantasies. Josh seems to want to perpetuate it. YOU, Josh, along with people like Pitts (appropriate name), make it seem like our people are chomping at the bit to perpetrate heinous violence upon a prisoner. I believe that at this point in time, all those who could have been thought to be at Gitmo unjustly have been released, with some of those being scumbags and rejoining the fight. It is indeed unfortunate should any be there that don't deserve to be, but quite frankly, they're unlikely to be "tortured" if they're cooperative and not causing trouble. But it is more likely that those who remain belong there if not in a grave. That they cool their heels for the duration is nothing anyone else in hasn't endured who has been taken prisoner during wartime.

Whether or not a given prisoner is an actual terrorist or not is irrelevant to the question of which interrogation techniques are allowed. It is terribly dishonest, and frankly a little stupid, to suggest that it matters to the question. But it is not the administration who is even framing the debate in terms of "Should we torture terrorists?" but the lefty obstructionists who in fact WANT the admin to be engaging in torture so as to have a mark against the admin to exploit come election time. Contrary to what Pitts lies about in his blather of a column, the admin seeks only clarification about what is and isn't allowed under Geneva. The left puts the admin in an unwinnable situation by railing against torture as if it is a common practice or policy of the admin, and is prepared to exploit the consequences of having removed any fear of the interrogators felt by the prisoners. What motivation is there for a prisoner who views death as a goal, yet knows no harm will come to him if he is uncooperative? You gonna run that rapport line again?

One more thing: it is also terribly dishonest to hold up isolated incidents as if they are routine. A rare occurence of mistaken identity is no reason to dispense with techniques that would preserve the lives of our soldiers, our people or the lives of our allies.

Finally, Pitts is really bold offering his life rather than the country's reputation in this situation. So, I suggest he go over there and prove he ain't blowing smoke.

5:25 PM  
Blogger Editor said...


What is and isn't torture is a bit late don't you think. What we have is Bush who authoirzed torture and now is looking to change the laws. It just proves he is a thug.


The only thing you prove be trying to say torture is not defined by law is your lack of understadning of law.

9:06 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Editor, you don't understand. I WANT interrogators to use tough and harsh treatment to get vital imformation out of terrorists and no, I do not care what other countries think.

11:01 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Cliff, when I was in the Air Force I was issued a Geneve Convention Card. This card held all the information that the enemy nneded if I was captured. They were standing jokes.

The point I was trying to make,. albiet poorly, was that they conventions are totally useless and in fact dangerous for our GI's.

War is a brutal business. It always has been and it always will be. The winner is the one who kills the most enemies. This is not pretty, but that's the way it is. Trying to eliminate its brutatlity is the definition of an exercise in futility.

7:28 AM  
Blogger Editor said...

Between the two Bushes, they've killed about a million Iraqis. So large scale killing isn't working yet. As a matter of fact it seems to have radicalized them.

But Bush has made a fortune with Caryle Group heavily invested in defense contractors. He is supposedly worth $ 3 billion. Quite a feat given that he was a public servant most of his career.

10:03 AM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

eddy has no idea how many Iraqi deaths can be attributed to direct action by either Bush. He will take an objective tack in trying to determine the number of dead who are all on the consciences of the enemy who brought about the whole mess. Who's responsible for the dead in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Obviously to the mentally challenged, such as eddy-boy (and I mean "BOY"), it is us and not the Japanese Imperial Government who started the whole thing. Once more we get an earful of eddy's BDS.

What is or isn't torture is still an issue that the left feels unnecessary to spell out. They just throw around the word and hope that Bush will someday be convicted of it, and of course they would try him in court with the hope of never defining it there either. It's another desperate tactic of the loser party.

3:32 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Marshall how is it that America doesn't know what torture is and isn't?

Just another republican lie from the thugs. And how where the Nuremberg trials held if torture was not defined and understood?

You sound alot like a seven year old that got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

And now that the NIE report is released we find Bush policies has increased terrorism. He is losing the war.

4:01 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

"Marshall how is it that America doesn't know what torture is and isn't?"

Because it's a subjective term, mushbrain. The term is often applied to any number of uncomfortable situations, such as reading your worthless opinions, but as it is used in interrrogations, the left prefers it remain ambiguous in order to more easily accuse the president. Nuremburg was based on specific actions that were then labeled as torture or war crimes. They didn't haul those dudes in under some flexible notion of torture, but for what was known to have occurred. Your claims of torture by the president isn't a concern for the prisoners or how we might appear to the world, but by your irrational hatred of George Bush. You're a fraud, even as a lib.

4:16 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:10 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:13 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

I'm happy for ya. Define it now. What exactly is the president doing that is torture? How do you distinguish between torture and agressive interrogation? What would you suggest to replace the techniques now in use? How can you insure that your ideas would be effective toward prisoners who will now have nothing to fear? How can you breath with your head so far up your ass? Do you have ANY ideas that have shown to be effective in this situation? What proof can you present to support your ideas?

8:47 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

He can't.

11:41 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Editor said...
"What a load of B.S. There is case law and stare decisis going back centuries that define torture"

Like what?

11:42 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

What a load of B.S. There is case law and stare decisis going back centuries that define torture.

7:02 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Editor said...
"What a load of B.S. There is case law and stare decisis going back centuries that define torture"

Like what?

7:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home