Report: CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons

Question:

What should be done with Al Qaeda members? They are not just soldiers fighting a war against us - they are like mini little WMD's....indoctrinated in a cause to kill American citizens and do us harm.

They will not speak or cooperate with authorites. They are like mafia members...and they do not care about their lives, only that in death, they can take more then a few of us with them....women, children, and all.

With that frame of reference....

Is torture a legitimate means to capture information that would leads to the capture of more Al Qaeda members?

It's a tough question. But let's think about this before responding. I'm not saying I'm in favor of it....just considering it.

 

bush may be a flip-flopper, but at least he isnt going around lying about his race to try and justify his arguments.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=117321&page=1&pp=20

 

Actually they will talk. Remember we had an Al Qaeda tech guy who was cooperating, and still receiving e-mails regularly from Al Qaeda leadership and others. Then when pressed by the media to provide results, the Bush administration blew the cover of this guy, and announced his capture and work with authorities in public. Of course the e-mails stopped coming in.

Since information gathered under torture isn't reliable with any consistency it won't help. Even if it does stop a few terrorists in the short term being seen as a cruel nation that authorizes the use of torture will only endanger our soldiers by making them hated and targets in regions where they are trying to do good work. It will stifle future informants from turning in others if they don't see any hope of just treatment and think we will just torture folks. There are numerous other bad outcomes that far outweigh any short term good. Not to mention it is just plain immoral, and something we should be standing against not making official policy.

We win the war on terror by holding on to our principles in the face of adversity, and not by abandoning them and lowering ourselves.

 

What's up with the personal vendetta?

 

Alright, that's pretty convincing.

 

no vendetta. just having a little fun pointing out that you are a liar.

 

The quiet past? Which past was that? Did I miss it? It slays me to read over and over again how the present is just so darned different from anything that has come before that we should toss our values and the fundamental underpinning of our nation, the Constitution, in the dumpster because of your, "stormy present." Which era would qualify as your quiet past, basso? I very curious. I would like to compare that quiet past with the stormy present, using your words (or your quote from Lincoln), so that we can get a handle on why we should give up our freedoms, our way of life, our international standing, our traditional role in the world for this President. Please... tell me about this quiet past.




Keep D&D Civil.

 

this one:


and mc marky, you're damned right it's political, it's the central question of our times, and it's time the democrats were called on it. the intention here is to bring to the foreground the (not so secret) admin assertion that we are fighting an active and ongoing war, one that extends far beyond the current high profile battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. this has been bush's long-standing position and strategy for fighting the War on Terror. how is it unfair, two months before an election, for the President to make his case for the administration’s ongoing war strategy in order to clearly differentiate his policies from those of his political and ideological opponents, who use any and every opportunity to second guess and criticize?

 

Because prior to this it was somehow a threat to national security to even bring up the idea that we were using secret prisons.

Now Bush is talking about it on national tv.

The Democrats shouldn't be called on anything except their inability or unwillingness to better stand up and prevent the kind of un-American assault on our rights that this administration has been guilty of.

As for second guessing please give me a break. Practically everything that has gone wrong in the war on terror was forewarned by the Republicans and Democrats.

We should fight an active war on terror. No Democrats that I have heard disagree with that. That war should not include the U.S. lowering its standards but rather fighting to preserve them.

 

Yes, I know... in your mind 9/11 justifies anything Bush does. You'd happily amend the Constitution to reelect the idiot to a third term, I'm sure. Good way to run away from my point. We haven't lived in a quiet past in my memory. I could post photos of horrific, violent events in every decade after the end of WWII, in which many, many people were killed and maimed. That was my point. We haven't really had a "quiet time," basso. What we have had is an out of control President pissing on the Constitution, while sending our people off to fight a needless war in Iraq based on lies, while ramping back the assets we had pursuing the people who really were behind 9/11. If that doesn't bother you, fine. It bothers me. I know that doesn't fit your fantasy about George. Sorry about that.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

i'm not sure how old you are deck, but i was born when nixon was still a veep, and in my lifetime 9/11 pretty much trumps everything else. what event, on america soil, is comparable IYHO, in your lifetime?

 

Show me where I said American soil? I would say the 55,000 dead of Vietnam, not to mention the vast number of maimed and mentally broken Americans to survive that conflict would be a start. That wasn't a quiet past for me. I managed to vote against Nixon, BTW.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

never had the pleasure, re nixon, although i did vote against carter, after i voted for him- is that a flip flop?

and my point about 9/11, is that al queda represents a different kind of threat than we have ever faced before. whatever else the NVA may have been capable of, they never were a threat to march down lower broadway.

 

I voted for Carter twice, although it was painful the second time, lol. Of course al queda represents a different kind of threat than we have ever faced before. How that morphed into invading Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, which Bush finally admitted the other day, after a truck load of BS the last few years saying the opposite, is mysterious to me. Why someone would support a President who lied to America about the reasons to invade Iraq, and pulled our forces away from the hunt for the leaders of the people who were responsible for 9/11, is a mystery to me. That he's been busy using the Constitution to wipe his feet on in the process makes that support even more of a mystery. There's enough mystery here to write a novel.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

so a little trivia, i voted against carter the second time, but not for reagan. who did i vote for?

 

Anderson

 

Good for you! I thought about it. He was my kind of Republican, one you scarcely see these days. Ultimately, he didn't affect the race, which Reagan won by a narrow popular vote, but a landslide of epic proportions in the electoral college. Those seem like good days, compared to today. They didn't seem so great at the time.

edit: I meant to add that FB got it right, of course!



Keep D&D Civil.

 

campaigned for him too.

 

what's wrong with torturing these suckers?
what do you want to lead the CIA?
Mr Rogers?
Cindy Sheehan?

what should we do? hold their hands and sing 'kumbaya allah kumbaya?'

quit the political spin on this topic. our enemies are our enemies.

i'd personally hire john gotti to run CIA.