Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:22 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
ZelieMike wrote:
You do realize Wilton, that the practical outcome of the implemenation of these policies will be seen by the military in the field as an abandonment of their efforts. Especially when known terrorist are set free.

I fear the practical result will be a substantial reduction in prisoners delivered to prison for trial

ZM


Very valid point. Until the lawyers start prosecuting soldiers for "killing" enemies. So what's next? Complete kaos throughout the defense system. But that's ok, because after Obama "talks" to everyone, we shouldn't need a military. We'll all be buddies.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Piratefan13 wrote:
You seem like a highly intelligent guy Wilton, far more intelligent than me, but what I see from you is what appears to be a partyline thought process. There must be some Liberal "playbook" that everyone follows, you know, take some fantasy moral highroad(unless it pertains to your success), blame the Republicans, Blame Bush, and strive for world peace that hasn't been achieved at any time throughout the entire life of this planet.

Your sophomoric attempt to describe my thought process shows that you only see things through the looking glass of party politics. I focus on the issues, not the identity of the political party that holds a certain position. I don't blame Bush because he's a Republican; I blame Bush because he and his cabinet have terrible judgment, and many of the problems that this country is facing are the fruits of his bad judgment.

Quote:
You did get upset that I questioned your concern for those that perished in 9/11, so with that, I have hopes for you. We need things like torture and tossing a KNOWN terrorist in a dark dank cell for a year or so to help ward off future attacks. I'm sorry my friend, your courts, and misplaced ethics are not concerning them whatsoever. Fear is the name of this game, now without GITMO, without waterboarding, and with Obama in office, and with defense lawyers with your skill, what stops them from doing 9/11 all over again?

Fear is often a byproduct of lack of understanding. Your fear of the American justice system appears to manifest from a lack of understanding it. Fear also causes people to do things that they later regret in life.

Step away from the slippery slope, PF13. The John Yoo interrogation policy has been largely discredited by both legal analysists and military analysts. The fact of the matter is that our introduction of torture into our interrogation techniques have turned neutral parties against us and endangered the lives of our soldiers. Just ask Major Matthew Alexander.
Quote:
The number-one reason foreign fighters gave for coming to Iraq to fight is the torture and abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. The majority of suicide bombings are carried out by foreign fighters who volunteered and came to Iraq with this motivation. Consequently it is clear that at least hundreds but more likely thousands of American lives (not to count Iraqi civilian deaths) are linked directly to the policy decision to introduce the torture and abuse of prisoners as accepted tactics. Americans have died from terrorist attacks since 9/11; those Americans just happen to be American soldiers. This is not simply my view–it is widely held among senior officers in the U.S. military today. Alberto Mora, who served as General Counsel of the Navy under Donald Rumsfeld, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “U.S. flag-rank officers maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq–as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat–are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.” We owe it to our troops to protect them from terrorist attacks by not conducting torture and we owe it to our forefathers to uphold the American principles that they passed down to us.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90004036

Piratefan13 wrote:
Sure Ben Franklin said that "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." But he never met Osama Bin Laden. He had never met such an adversary.

No, but he did know the British Empire. You apparently underestimate how powerful the British Empire was in 1776.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Last edited by Willton on Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
You do realize Wilton, that the practical outcome of the implemenation of these policies will be seen by the military in the field as an abandonment of their efforts. Especially when known terrorist are set free.

I fear the practical result will be a substantial reduction in prisoners delivered to prison for trial

ZM

You are assuming that any known terrorists will be set free. I would think that if someone in U.S. custody was a "known terrorist," the U.S. Government would have enough evidence to prove as much. If your fear is that the Government will not be able to put these people behind bars because of lack of evidence, then perhaps they aren't really "known terrorists" after all. If the U.S. Government is going to label someone a "known terrorist," they should be able to prove it.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4083
Location: Zelienople, PA
13 already have been.

And, while the guy from the Cole seems to be under "house arrest", it looks like all evidence will be waived in any type of civilian trial.

The perception will only grow from that type of release.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
13 already have been.

Who?

Quote:
And, while the guy from the Cole seems to be under "house arrest", it looks like all evidence will be waived in any type of civilian trial.

Why?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
I hide behind the uniform the same way you hide behind the law.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4083
Location: Zelienople, PA
Willton wrote:
ZelieMike wrote:
13 already have been.

Who?


I don't have names. We had a CNN report a couple weeks ago that a released prisoner is the No.2 Al-Queda man in Saudi Arabia.

Last week, Yemen released another 12, after their rehab stint that have gone back to Yemen Al Queda. This however, might be a ploy by the Yemeni gov. to track down other elements. However, they are reported heading straight back to the field.

Quote:
And, while the guy from the Cole seems to be under "house arrest", it looks like all evidence will be waived in any type of civilian trial.

Why?[/quote]

Gathered under water boarding. Which is why the judge let him go in the first place. She is quoted as saying she knows he is guiltly, but can't do anything about it.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
[quote "wilton"]Fear is often a byproduct of lack of understanding. Your fear of the American justice system appears to manifest from a lack of understanding thereof. Fear also causes people to do things that they later regret in life.

Step away from the slippery slope, PF13. The John Yoo interrogation policy has been largely discredited by both legal analysists and military analysts. The fact of the matter is that our introduction of torture into our interrogation techniques have turned neutral parties against us and endangered the lives of our soldiers. Just ask Major Matthew Alexander.[/quote]

So we gain understanding of the radical Muslims, what next? Nothing changes, they hate us and always will. Your missing my point Wilton, we may never have to interrogate, but terrorists never have to know that. Now with the President publicly outlawing it, we lose a pawn in the overall chess game.

I don't see this through any partyline Wilton, I am frankly thoroughly dismayed at the way the Republicans went into this election, like it was going to be handed to them. I think that McCain was off-base on some of the core Conservative values. And I believe that the Republicans did us a disservice for promoting McCain. Love the guy, what he did for this country, but his politics are skewed.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
The number-one reason foreign fighters gave for coming to Iraq to fight is the torture and abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. The majority of suicide bombings are carried out by foreign fighters who volunteered and came to Iraq with this motivation. Consequently it is clear that at least hundreds but more likely thousands of American lives (not to count Iraqi civilian deaths) are linked directly to the policy decision to introduce the torture and abuse of prisoners as accepted tactics. Americans have died from terrorist attacks since 9/11; those Americans just happen to be American soldiers. This is not simply my view–it is widely held among senior officers in the U.S. military today. Alberto Mora, who served as General Counsel of the Navy under Donald Rumsfeld, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “U.S. flag-rank officers maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq–as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat–are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.” We owe it to our troops to protect them from terrorist attacks by not conducting torture and we owe it to our forefathers to uphold the American principles that they passed down to us.


There is no possible way to qualify this information as valid. How do you ask the suicide bomber why he did it? Additionally, where is the proof that these thousands of soldiers are linked directly to the US torturing prisoners. C'mon Wilton, if I would have quoted something like this, you would have eaten me up. This is heresay at best. I believe that the terrorists are coming for our guys not matter what they do. They will continue to come, over and over and over again until America loses the taste for the war, and that is when they have won. I am afraid that we are beginning to see that come to pass.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
You're forgetting the #1 rule of liberals in 2009.

It's fact because we say it's fact.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Piratefan13 wrote:
Quote:
The number-one reason foreign fighters gave for coming to Iraq to fight is the torture and abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. The majority of suicide bombings are carried out by foreign fighters who volunteered and came to Iraq with this motivation. Consequently it is clear that at least hundreds but more likely thousands of American lives (not to count Iraqi civilian deaths) are linked directly to the policy decision to introduce the torture and abuse of prisoners as accepted tactics. Americans have died from terrorist attacks since 9/11; those Americans just happen to be American soldiers. This is not simply my view–it is widely held among senior officers in the U.S. military today. Alberto Mora, who served as General Counsel of the Navy under Donald Rumsfeld, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “U.S. flag-rank officers maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq–as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat–are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.” We owe it to our troops to protect them from terrorist attacks by not conducting torture and we owe it to our forefathers to uphold the American principles that they passed down to us.


There is no possible way to qualify this information as valid. How do you ask the suicide bomber why he did it? Additionally, where is the proof that these thousands of soldiers are linked directly to the US torturing prisoners. C'mon Wilton, if I would have quoted something like this, you would have eaten me up. This is heresay at best.

Um, this is the statement of a U.S. military interrogator. What reason does he have to lie? The proof that he has is the testimony of the Iraqi captives he interrogated overseas. Seriously, you're going to claim that the testimony of a decorated military officer who specializes in interrogation is not credible?

Piratefan13 wrote:
I believe that the terrorists are coming for our guys not matter what they do. They will continue to come, over and over and over again until America loses the taste for the war, and that is when they have won. I am afraid that we are beginning to see that come to pass.

Well, clearly we have to believe you. What does your belief stand upon?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
Willton wrote:
ZelieMike wrote:
13 already have been.

Who?


I don't have names. We had a CNN report a couple weeks ago that a released prisoner is the No.2 Al-Queda man in Saudi Arabia.

Last week, Yemen released another 12, after their rehab stint that have gone back to Yemen Al Queda. This however, might be a ploy by the Yemeni gov. to track down other elements. However, they are reported heading straight back to the field.

I found this: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/ ... newssearch
Quote:
(CNN) -- Yemen has denied "exaggerated and false" media reports that it recently released 170 al Qaeda suspects from its prisons, according to a statement issued on Tuesday by its embassy in Washington.

An unnamed security services official in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa told Agence France-Press on Sunday that Yemeni authorities had directives to release 176 people with links to the al Qaeda terrorist network. Of those, 95 had already been released, he told AFP.

The Yemeni Embassy said authorities have released 108 prisoners, but they were "not affiliated in any way to al Qaeda."

"The released prisoners have been accused in the past of violating Yemeni laws and were tried in the courts," the embassy said. "The majority of them have served their sentences in prison. The government of Yemen will continue to closely monitor all newly released prisoners."

So, it's debatable whether the people to which you point were actually terrorists or just Yemeni criminals. In any case, it appears that the U.S. had no hand in releasing these people. This was the action of the Yemen government, not the U.S.

ZelieMike wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
And, while the guy from the Cole seems to be under "house arrest", it looks like all evidence will be waived in any type of civilian trial.

Why?


Gathered under water boarding. Which is why the judge let him go in the first place. She is quoted as saying she knows he is guiltly, but can't do anything about it.

ZM

Where do you find this? I can't find this at all; in fact, I find something quite contrary to your assertion. According to CNN, it was the prosecution that dropped the charges (while reserving the right to re-file), not that the judge let him go. I also see no quote from any judge regarding this case, which is understandable considering such a quote would probably color the judge as impermissibly biased and hurt her career as a judge.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4083
Location: Zelienople, PA
Willton wrote:
I found this: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/ ... newssearch
Quote:
(CNN) -- Yemen has denied "exaggerated and false" media reports that it recently released 170 al Qaeda suspects from its prisons, according to a statement issued on Tuesday by its embassy in Washington.."


No, that is not the one I was looking for. The specific number as 12, and they had gone through a rehab program, and were being let loose with a promise not to participate anymore.

Quote:
Where do you find this? I can't find this at all; in fact, I find something quite contrary to your assertion. According to CNN, it was the prosecution that dropped the charges (while reserving the right to re-file), not that the judge let him go. I also see no quote from any judge regarding this case, which is understandable considering such a quote would probably color the judge as impermissibly biased and hurt her career as a judge.


I'll apoligize here. I got the wrong guy. The one let go by the military judge was a guy that was supposed to be one the hijackers to bomb the capital on 9/11. He got released under Obama's orders because his confession was extracted.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
No, that is not the one I was looking for. The specific number as 12, and they had gone through a rehab program, and were being let loose with a promise not to participate anymore.

Can you show this to me? I can't find it anywhere.

ZelieMike wrote:
I'll apoligize here. I got the wrong guy. The one let go by the military judge was a guy that was supposed to be one the hijackers to bomb the capital on 9/11. He got released under Obama's orders because his confession was extracted.

ZM

I also cannot find this story either and would really appreciate a link to this story. But assuming that it's true, the correct term is "coerced," not "extracted." A confession is still admissible if it is extracted through normative, legal means. It is inadmissible if it is coerced through undue means, especially if such means is torture. I'm pretty sure this is true even under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
So here is my question... What happens if you have a terrorist who has information about upcoming attacks on maybe US military positions, or maybe civilian positions? If you are unable to extract the information, innocent civilian and us troops would be at risk. That is a high price to pay for a perceived moral high road. Are you going to be the guy who accepts the responsibility for the cost of lives and how would you explain it to the families of the dead troops or civilians? How would you explain to them that you had information available through a detainee but refused to utilize torture tactics in lue of world perception. I am so sure that those families would be far happier with the way the world perceives the US than having their loved one by their side.

Certainly you can provide mountains of legalistic data, references and quotations, but ultimately there is an actual humanistic side to the situation. And it really is as simple as this. Information is key to successes in war and homeland protection, I believe that we should gather that intell by any means necessary.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4083
Location: Zelienople, PA
Ok, here is one of the notes I was referring to...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD966SO5O0

If you count, or get back to a search header, you will find that 11 of teh 85 being searched are Gitmo released, and have gone through the rehab programs.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
Your sophomoric attempt to describe my thought process shows that you only see things through the looking glass of party politics. I focus on the issues, not the identity of the political party that holds a certain position. I don't blame Bush because he's a Republican; I blame Bush because he and his cabinet have terrible judgment, and many of the problems that this country is facing are the fruits of his bad judgment.


You blame Bush because you are told to blame Bush. Many strong minded folks such as myself haven't let the overly left-wing biased networks brainwash our minds. My "sophmoric attempt" is based soley in reality my friend, Liberal media has perfected the art of swaying highly intelligent, highly analytical folks such as yourself by cascading a barage of negative feedback on Bush, on the War in Iraq, and on life in America in general. Your sophmoric attempt to bulldoze me over with trumped up reports and quotes from historical figures reeks of hipocracy. Liberals are the first to offer changes to the constitution regarding bills and ideas benefitting them, claiming that the constitution was written in different times. I have reason to believe that Liberals despise the Constituion as it is written.

Your Liberal belief system is transparent to me regardless of whether you claim to blame Bush's judgement without a view from either partyline considering that every argument that you present is one that would likely come from CNN or MSNBC. Go ask them about all the good that Bush had done over his 8 years of Presidency, they will not tell you a thing because they are to immature to admit the good that someone other than a Liberal has done. Don't waste my time saying that Bush did nothing good because then you would be contradicting information that I receive from my officer friends in country. At least I have the guts to admit that Bill Clinton did some things that were good for this country as opposed to the many I believe that caused us harm.

So as you and I sit across the fence from each other, terrorists are gaining ground that was already taken by us Americans. Within 3 weeks of Obama's Presidency he has literally given back power and authority in the form of leverage to all terrorists in the world by innaccurately closing GITMO, halting trials, condemning torture, and prostrating America in front of the Muslim community. You applaud him for his "high morals," I say TREASON. These first three weeks are going to get a ton of people killed, and that is tragic. But hey, its ok, Liberals will just blame it on Bush or Republicans, no skin off their back. The most unfortunate thing is that you are so wrapped in your warped sense of values that you place the importance of rights of criminals above soldiers and civilians around the world. That sure is a heavy burden to carry.

Sure, come at with with some lousy report by someone who determines this or determines that, its ALL opinion. Especially the report on torture, this official claims that the information was attained from detainees at GITMO? How can this guy even think he can actually validate his research. Yes, terrorists have always been so truthful. I have another word for you guys... gullible. Your idealogic BS actually carries no weight with me because you don't have the kind of love for freedom and country that I do. I see nothing that proves that you care at all for the safety of this country. Be offended if you like... thats just what I see from your argument. You look down on me as an un-intelligent hateful American, and that's your opinion.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits