Former VP Speech

[Random8145]

Briefly put, the Obama administration has kept, altered, and repackaged the methods Bush put in place. But more importantly, he is realigning these methods in a sustainable fashion, in line with our values and laws, rather than Cheney's argument that dangerous times call for exceptional measures.

What is exceptional about them? And as far as I can see, Obama is making us look weak to the terrorists and giving them all the information they need to prepare for more capture.

His notion that waterboarding "encourages recruitment" is one of the most insane things I've ever heard. Yeah, it will encourage recruitment of terrorists, because that's the worst we do to them. If you are hell-bent on destroying a nation, you have little to fear if waterboarding is the worst you'll face.

Any enemies like the Nazis, Soviets, Islamic terrorists, etc...respect strength. They abhor weakness.

The Nazis who persecuted the Jews hated them all the more because the Jews acted so docile and weak. The Nazis respected strength. They were militaristic and warmongers, who greatly admired the British Empire from a historical standpoint and wanted to build up something similar.

These terrorists respect strength. They are only going to become more emboldened and hateful through the weak and appeasement-based actions Obama is taking, IMO.

Remember "jihad" may mean struggle, but so does "Mein Kampf."

Cheney claims indignantly that there is no middle ground, no compromise when it comes to fighting terrorism, that his way is the right way.

I don't think there is.

But there is no one "right" way to pursue this war, and the American people have a right to a say in how far they are willing to go and what lines we are willing to cross in the name of security.

What lines have been crossed?

Yes, 14% of released detainees have returned to "terrorism or militant activity", which includes association with terrorists. Not the blanket "conducted murderous attacks" as Cheney asserted. What of the other 86%? Too bad?

I don't think they just randomly round up innocents and throw them in Gitmo, they have certain standards to follow I believe.

All right, I disagree with the former Vice President's assertion that torture works, though he claims that waterboarding is not torture. If it worked why do they tell us otherwise in SERE? Did it work on the US POW's in Vietnam and Korea? What makes these guys so different? Where are the studies proving that it does work? The guys formulating policy didn't even bother to find out any history behind the practice and its previous prosecution of waterboarding as a war crime by the US against some Japanese after WWII. All of this was done by people who had little to no experience in interrogation or handling prisoners. The experts they asked, JPRA, even told them that these practices produced unreliable information. Now all of this is being defended by a guy who had "had other priorities in the 60's than military service"?

Give me a break. :icon_roll

Cheney says it did and that there are documents proving this. The administration should release all of the documents, but has yet to do so.

At least then the American public could decide if its worth trading our countries values and historical stance on the treatment of prisoners for the information received.

I don't know how we are "trading our values." These are non-state terrorists who violated the rules of war. They are not entitled to Geneva Convention rights or the Constitution. Even if they were uniformed soldiers, they still violated the rules of war, so the Geneva Conventions still shouldn't apply.

During World War II, German soldiers who broke the rules of war were simply lined up against the wall and shot.

Only three terrorists were waterboarded, all hardened hardcore murderers.

 

[robav8r]

Cheney claims indignantly that there is no middle ground, no compromise when it comes to fighting terrorism . . .

There isn't . . . not should there ever be.

 

[VS FO]

I thought it was a good speech that raised a lot of good issues. Everybody seems to hate Bush and his policies for the last 6 or so years.. We'll see how the next 4-8 go for the country.

 

[mmx1]

Any enemies like the Nazis, Soviets, Islamic terrorists, etc...respect strength. They abhor weakness.

The Nazis who persecuted the Jews hated them all the more because the Jews acted so docile and weak. The Nazis respected strength. They were militaristic and warmongers, who greatly admired the British Empire from a historical standpoint and wanted to build up something similar.

These terrorists respect strength.

A strange choice of moral authorities.

 

[SkywardET]

I can't seem to get past the fact that waterboarding is torture. It is torture, right? According to dictionary.com (the most reputable of sources, of course), the definition refers mostly to cause extreme pain, but leaves open the interpretation that mental trauma can be torture as well. Waterboarding seems like torture to me, though. I guess I'll find out in SERE years from now.

To quote a certain Fox News host, "This is America! We don't f***ing torture!"

 

[Godspeed]

The point he really drove home (to me at least) was the mindset of America since 9/11....

Shortly after 9/11, the entire country backed up the administration to take bold measures (granted under the constitution) to protect the homeland.

Such measures proved to be VERY effective against defending this country, but mysteriously dwindled in popularity over time. A seven + year track record is good. The left needs to stop denying this administration the right to be proud of such a record. It's as if people aren't as concerned with the defense of this country anymore as they are with quibbling about politics.

I would be willing to bet everything I own, that a couple weeks after 9/11, if you took a national poll about whether waterboarding should be allowed to extract information from the most hard core terrorist masterminds about future plots, you'd get a resounding "YES".

I think the problem with many people (on both sides of the political spectrum) is that we have 'forgotten'.... So much for the "We'll never forget" line that was thrown around post 9/11.

Unfortunately I think it's going to take another catastrophic attack and thousands (if not more) American lives to re-ignite our relentless activism and determination to defending this country against terrorism.

I don't think people take seriously the possible threats this nation could face when it comes to terrorism... When I think about possible terrorist attacks on the US, it's not the 9/11 type attacks that worry me so much... It's chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. I don't think waterboarding confirmed terrorists that know about such plots compromises American ideaology in any way, manner, shape or form. In fact, I think waterboarding in this instance EMBRACES American idealogy.

I think we're letting our guard down. Declassifying information about our techniques and methods for dealing with terrorists makes us weaker and shows that we are DIVIDED as a nation, an objective any enemy would want to achieve. One of the most profound things I think Cheney said, was WHY terrorists hate us... Our treatment of women in society, our relationship with Israel, etc.

I resent the "waterboarding recruits terrorists" argument floating around the left.... It's as if disallowing waterboarding to 'preserve American ideals' will make the terrorists step back and say "Hmmm, those American's were so awful before, but now that they won't waterboard us, they're ok after all. Lets make friends".

I'm no military strategest, but I firmly believe that the intelligence necessary to stop such plots is an absolute must for defending this nation. Our lives, the lives of our families, not to mention the economic backbone of this nation (and many other nations) all come down to stopping these attacks. Stopping these attacks all comes down to INTELLIGENCE.

I think the Bush Administration gave the intelligence community the tools they needed to get the job done. Bottom line, the job GOT DONE.

I pray to god that the current administration is as successful.

 

[Bevo16]

I can't seem to get past the fact that waterboarding is torture. It is torture, right? According to dictionary.com

No it's not.

Read some accounts of what the Japs did to our guys in WW2. That will get you past it.

 

[scoolbubba]

A strange choice of moral authorities.

reading comprehension=fail. nice worst.

 

[Flash]

You disagree with an assertion that the Vice President specifically did not make? He said water boarding is not torture, and that it works. It's pretty simple.

Just because the Vice President and a couple lawyers say it is not torture does not change the facts, US law and most professionals call it torture as does SERE. The facts gathered cannot even be admitted into court as evidence, that ought to tell you something.

Were you drunk at SERE too? They said that torture does not work. About a week later the staff does a pretty good job of proving that water boarding does, in fact, work.

Yet they still say it does not work, and said as much when asked by those who were looking into it using it as an 'interrogation' technique. I will also fall back on what a Marine CWO Interrogator told me, that the moment you start abusing someone you can rely on nothing that comes out of them.

I don't know about you but I really didn't know a whole hell of a lot to tell at SERE and most of what came out was gibberish anyways. I told them something and moved on, and it wasn't the truth. How do you tell the difference?

Sometimes, yes, the torture that the VC and Koreans did on our guys did work. They did a hell of a lot worse than water boarding though, and it is ignorant and insulting to attempt to equate what our guys did at Gitmo to what happened to our POW's in those conflicts.

Yeah it was a lot worse but it still didn't work to a large degree. Did VADM Stockdale give up what he knew about the Tonkin Gulf incident? And the rest, how do the Vietnamese and Koreans know they got good info? They most likely didn't in a lot of cases.

 

[mmx1]

There isn't . . . not should there ever be.

He was not talking about middle ground or compromise with our enemy. He was talking about within our own nation, between Americans attempting to define a national security strategy. Oh, but excuse me, leftists are the enemies of America so I guess their opinions don't count.

reading comprehension=fail. nice worst.

So tell me why I would ever want the respect of the Nazis, the Soviets, the Hirohito Japan, or Al Qaeda? Frankly, if they do, I'm going to take a good hard look at myself and figure out what I'm doing wrong. Did the Nazi admiration of Soviet strength stop them from stabbing them in the back? Should Japanese disdain for our treatment of casualties have stopped us from providing medical care to our wounded (nevermind theirs)? Perhaps we should have bayoneted some POW's or raped some civilians to better earn their "respect".

The hearts and minds I'm concerned about are not our sworn enemies, but the millions on the fence. Being "slightly less evil but with bigger guns (and not anything culturally or religiously alike)" isn't a winning strategy.

I would be willing to bet everything I own, that a couple weeks after 9/11, if you took a national poll about whether waterboarding should be allowed to extract information from the most hard core terrorist masterminds about future plots, you'd get a resounding "YES".

Due to an irrationally heightened sense of vulnerability that is not sustainable and should not be sustained. We were in shock and emotionally distraught. Discarding rationality and appealing to those strong emotions is a bullshit way of making policy. It's one thing to try to explain away what's been done through the lens of history; it's quite another to let it drive our decision-making now and for the future.

And don't you dare equate equate refusing to live in the shadow of 9/11 with "forgetting".

 

[scoolbubba]

So tell me why I would ever want the respect of the Nazis, the Soviets, the Hirohito Japan, or Al Qaeda? Frankly, if they do, I'm going to take a good hard look at myself and figure out what I'm doing wrong. Did the Nazi admiration of Soviet strength stop them from stabbing them in the back? Should Japanese disdain for our treatment of casualties have stopped us from providing medical care to our wounded (nevermind theirs)? Perhaps we should have bayoneted some POW's or raped some civilians to better earn their "respect".

The hearts and minds I'm concerned about are not our sworn enemies, but the millions on the fence. Being "slightly less evil but with bigger guns (and not anything culturally or religiously alike)" isn't a winning strategy.
.

Respect, in that grudging "these are not people to be fucked with" kind of way. Most of the people in the sandbox don't give a fuck one way or another who is in charge, they just want to be left alone and eke out a living.

The people that DO care who is in charge and don't want it to be us need to constantly be reminded that WE have big guns, and WE will kill you...at night...in your sleep...if you screw with us. That's the kind of respect we're talking about earning. Playing this game with kid gloves gets people killed.

 

[mmx1]

Well, if killing them won't scare them, how much further are you willing to go? I mean, I don't want to fuck with Lynddie England or Michael Vick.....but I don't want to BE them either.

I'm frankly not interesting in getting a scare-off with terrorists, I don't think it's a contest we can or want to win.

 

[exhelodrvr]

So tell me why I would ever want the respect of the Nazis, the Soviets, the Hirohito Japan, or Al Qaeda?quote]

Ever heard of MAD? Soviet respect for us.

Any guess on why Jordan and Egypt have grudgingly accepted the existence of Israel? They respect the Israeli military.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

Cheney claims indignantly that there is no middle ground, no compromise when it comes to fighting terrorism

You're either for it, or against it. Where is there room for middle ground?

 

[Godspeed]

Due to an irrationally heightened sense of vulnerability that is not sustainable and should not be sustained. We were in shock and emotionally distraught. Discarding rationality and appealing to those strong emotions is a bullshit way of making policy. It's one thing to try to explain away what's been done through the lens of history; it's quite another to let it drive our decision-making now and for the future.

And don't you dare equate equate refusing to live in the shadow of 9/11 with "forgetting".

You're out of your mind. I think, for the first time, American's were thinking SOUNDLY after 9/11. Everyone realized the magnitude of who and what we were dealing with.

I think a nation should always 'live in the shadow' of its history. People that have your mentality are the same type of people that believe in world peace, that we should demilitarize and not 'live in our past' afraid of war.

Screw that. Walk softly, and carry a big f**king stick man. I'm not suggesting that we be afraid of terrorism... What I am saying, is that let's carry a big stick and be relentless it never happens again.

I think such defensive and offensive matters against said terrorists SHOULD be sustained, strictly to prevent such attrocities in the future. If you are delusional enough to think everything is hunky dorry in the world now (don't want to 'live in the shadow of 9/11), and we need to loosen our diligence in pursuing intelligence, you have forgotten how vulnerable a target this country is from said attacks.

Loss of life aside, do you remember what the economy did post 9/11? Do you realize how big of an impact another attack would most likely have?

Let me ask you another question... Try to relate to this PERSONALLY for just a second... If you knew with certainty that you captured an individual that knew of a plot to kill your sister, or wife, or family, you wouldn't beat the piss out of them to extract said information in an attempt to save their life? (which btw, we aren't even talking about beating someone up, we're talking about waterboarding). If the answer is no, I don't think this is ever something we could agree upon.

History has much to teach us. In this instance, I think it teaches us that we have to relentlessly pursue these terrorist bastards and squeeze every drop of information out of them we can find. We don't have any other choice. After all, the borders of this nation aren't 'air tight'.