Trump reverses position on torture, targeting civilians

[stillbornagain]

(Note: No single terrorist in US custody has ever suffered more harm in interrogation than every single pilot and special forces soldier there is or has been since the 1960s. The entire argument against enhanced interrogation is so intellectually crippled it does not even arrive at a moral dilemma, just emotional appeal).

" Enhanced interrogation." You gotta love the prissy, effete, bureaucratic language here. Be a real woman and call it what it is: torture.

But after all, what's so bad about torture? Just because the USA ratified a treaty that banned the use of torture, so what? It's true that the Constitution states that once the USA ratifies a treaty it's the law of the land, but what of it? Only Marxist/Democratic Socialists would care about that. After all, that treaty was signed by one of our most effeminate, limp-wristed, liberal-loving presidents of all time: Ronald Reagan.

As for your claim that "no single terrorist has ever suffered more harm etc....." that must mean that every single pilot and special forces soldier is dead. Because the USA has tortured alleged terrorists to death. I guess this means that our armed forces are made up of zombies.

Here's one source: http://www.vice.com/read/hypothermia-broken-limbs-and-rectal-feeding-details-from-the-cia-torture-report-129

[Ulysses G.]

His point is not that torture is good. His point is that pretty much every army uses it and it works. If we stop we will be at a real disadvantage as far as collecting intelligence. What we really need to do is keep using it and denying it as we have been doing since the country was born.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[stillbornagain]

His point is not that torture is good. His point is that pretty much every army uses it and it works. If we stop we will be at a real disadvantage as far as collecting intelligence. What we really need to do is keep using it and denying it as we have been doing since the country was born.

No, that was absolutely not what he said. He said that no terrorist (and here he assumes that every person tortured by the USA was a terrorist) suffered any worse than pilots and special forces had. I assume that he meant that pilots and special forces are subject to brief rounds of waterboarding and such. Anyway, if they had been subject to the same treatment, they would have emerged from the experience with broken limbs, etc. His assertion was utterly untrue. But this is a woman who has no use for facts as her other posts prove.

As for your assertion that torture works, interrogation experts disagree. When you torture people they'll say anything to make it stop. Once they figure out what the interrogator wants to hear, they'll say it. That's why the FBI interrogation team was opposed to it. Not because they're flaming liberals and believe that our government should abide by the Constitution, but because the information provided by it is inherently untrustworthy.

[Ulysses G.]

That is not what the CIA says. They got Bin Ladin with it. They have questioning techniques to make sure the suspect is answering honestly.

Zero Dark Thirty, the film about the hunt for and killing of Osama bin Laden, got a fresh infusion of buzz over the weekend when outgoing secretary of Defense Leon Panetta confirmed again that enhanced interrogation techniques aided the effort to find bin Laden.

"Some of it came from ... interrogation tactics that were used," he said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/04/jonah-goldberg-torture-helped-get-bin-laden/1891403/

Edited March 6, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

His point is not that torture is good. His point is that pretty much every army uses it and it works. If we stop we will be at a real disadvantage as far as collecting intelligence. What we really need to do is keep using it and denying it as we have been doing since the country was born.

No, that was absolutely not what he said.

No one said that was what he said. I said that was his POINT.

[Jingthing]

Just how high is the embarrassment level in the republican party at all of this? Now that everyone in contention has entered the mud slinging farce throwing playground insults do they not realise that they are becoming a laughing stock across the world. Anyone with integrity would have walked away long ago.

I'm embarrassed as an American that Trump is doing so well. People see Americans now and they think they might be a Trump supporter.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Jingthing

[stillbornagain]

His point is not that torture is good. His point is that pretty much every army uses it and it works. If we stop we will be at a real disadvantage as far as collecting intelligence. What we really need to do is keep using it and denying it as we have been doing since the country was born.

No, that was absolutely not what he said.

No one said that was what he said. I said that was his POINT.

No it wasn't. I 've just reread it. Nowhere does SHE (you should respect the gender that Arjunadawn has chosen for herself whether or not she is biologically female) state that torture is effective. It's hard to extract coherent thought from what she does write but her point is that the US is not serious about pursuing this war, not that torture is effective. She certainly doesn't help her case by getting facts consistently wrong.

[stevenl]

If I was a Trump supporter I would feel betrayed as well as feeling very, very st "less than bright".

As long as we are talking about being betrayed by a politician running for president...

if I were one of those millions of hopefuls who donated to Bernie's presidential campaign I would certainly feel betrayed and would even start a class-action suit against him if I knew how.Why the feeling of betrayal? It borders on fraud...he asks people to give him money to run for president then he doesn't even try to win. Even though he is behind in delegates and in the polls, he refuses to confront his only opponent with some uncomfortable facts regarding the investigations into her email server and the Clinton Foundation. Feel the Burn? Yeah, those who supported him with donations sure got burned.

Bernie doesn't say stupid/illegal things like torture or targeting civilians...and he hasn't done anything illegal that I know of like Clinton. But we all know that if Berne had a chance at winning the nomination, he would reverse his position on some of his more radical/socialist statements in order to move more towards the center. But as it is, he can appear principled because he doesn't really want the nomination anyway.[edit...just your money]

Please refrain from 'we all know'. I don't know this and don't agree with you, especially when it concerns somebody who has shown to be the most ethical politician in the race. But you know he would reverse his position if it would gain him votes.

Please stay on the extreme right wing where you clearly belong, and don't tarnish the most honourable candidate around just because he is the one you're afraid of.

[arjunadawn]

(Note: No single terrorist in US custody has ever suffered more harm in interrogation than every single pilot and special forces soldier there is or has been since the 1960s. The entire argument against enhanced interrogation is so intellectually crippled it does not even arrive at a moral dilemma, just emotional appeal).

" Enhanced interrogation." You gotta love the prissy, effete, bureaucratic language here. Be a real woman and call it what it is: torture.

But after all, what's so bad about torture? Just because the USA ratified a treaty that banned the use of torture, so what? It's true that the Constitution states that once the USA ratifies a treaty it's the law of the land, but what of it? Only Marxist/Democratic Socialists would care about that. After all, that treaty was signed by one of our most effeminate, limp-wristed, liberal-loving presidents of all time: Ronald Reagan.

As for your claim that "no single terrorist has ever suffered more harm etc....." that must mean that every single pilot and special forces soldier is dead. Because the USA has tortured alleged terrorists to death. I guess this means that our armed forces are made up of zombies.

Here's one source: http://www.vice.com/read/hypothermia-broken-limbs-and-rectal-feeding-details-from-the-cia-torture-report-129

1. Do not bastardize posts by re editing the content and/or deleting the posts in part to change the meaning. You have done this. Don't! Pretty sure its not permitted and your post above shows why!

Enhanced interrogation is the subject. Appeals to emotion aside, torture has never been approved nor argued. Its only what falls loosely or arguably under "enhanced interrogation" that is the subject of discourse. Torture is already covered and illegal under numerous laws. All special forces etc undergo enhanced interrogation, water boarding, etc. This is, after all, the eye candy defining issue of enhanced interrogation.

I am unsure the purpose in the Dulles article VI argument above. The non sequitar of what constitutes the supreme law of the land is hardly fitted well in what point your aiming for. This reasoning is so fallacious as to be absurd.

My point remains valid; it is. US soldiers undergo the same abuses and yes, no, sometimes, lines have been crossed, hypothermia, mistakes, deaths, etc. All in all, many thousands have trained at SERE schools since the 60s and its utility is priceless. No combatant who's an existential threat to America should be afforded protections that we do not expect our own soldiers to be afforded in the battlespace. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/01/cancel_waterboarding_101.html

[Scott]

Posts violating fair use policy have been removed.

You may not quote over 3 sentences and then a link to the article.

Also, I strongly suggest you be civil to other members.

Edit: More posts removed. Continue and suspensions will be given.

[arjunadawn]

I do believe that the West should do whatever it takes. Rather then allow the US and the West to decline/be destroyed embracing a rather less than moral certainty, or one fabricated by the quasi legal moral argument offered previously; I prefer instead to obliterate in total war those who seek our destruction. Its always those who know least about what is coming that seek the greatest refuge in their own moral armor. What is happening to the West/US is no less than Civilization Jihad, total subjection, Submission.

If any thinks that the moral lines of torture/not torture have been fully exercised to date they are delusional; all that has taken place in the last x years of this debacle is a love affair between the left and radical islam- the actual merits of morality have hardly been appraised in any meaningful way. The "running interference" of the left by arguing the barbarism of the means of the West are just one more love story in the marriage of left and jihad. The actual merits if not legal wherewithal are only peripherally addressed.

Until such a time as the threat that is arrayed against the US/West is actually defined (even described) no manner of discussion about what constitutes a bridge too far or torture can take place. There is currently zero estimation of the threat arrayed against the US nor what constitutes Civilization Jihad. Without knowing the proportional risk, then asserting a moral line really is a suicide pact and proponents should be honest and admit it. "We have a moral code, it may not be your moral code, it may not even be judeochristian moral code, but it is better we are all destroyed rather then our vague lines be crossed." This is after all, what is asserted. I choose instead to always measure such a thing relative to the threat.

If today's dilemmas cause insomnia one need just wait a year or so and see what cries to protect us our people later scream. In an effort to avert the moral dilemma fantasized in previous posts, the west now just kills [them] all. No intel. No interrogation. No database. No HUMINT. The issue is not resolved, its just massaged. The West just murders [them] with drones rather than face the generated conundrum that plagues the minds of some like previous posters. This is the direct consequence of the moral arguments offered in previous posts- murder. Its not admitted, its not addressed, but murder is preferable to opponents of enhanced interrogation then the actual interrogation. To wit, they are silent on the consequence- murdering potential suspects as policy as opposed to enhanced interrogation.

The puzzle remains and people WILL be screaming for enhanced tools before [its] all over. When the threats magnify, the resources dwindle, the defeats add up, people will be screaming for answers. Morality is not a suicide pact. People who think this is so simple have never had to confront the equation where, quite frankly, all choices are bad.

[willyumiii]

Flip flops?

Is this a flip flop?

Remember the Republican response when John Kerry changed his mind?

Their flip flop campaign along with lies about swift boats cost Kerry the election.

You just have to love the GOP.!

Edited March 6, 2016 by willyumiii

[willyumiii]

His point is not that torture is good. His point is that pretty much every army uses it and it works. If we stop we will be at a real disadvantage as far as collecting intelligence. What we really need to do is keep using it and denying it as we have been doing since the country was born.

It is proven that torture does not produce reliable information.

But it usually produces the information you want to hear.

Many people will say anything you want them to say if it will stop the torture, if it is the truth or not.

Ask the war hero, John Mccain

He sang like a bird..

[lostboy]

" Enhanced interrogation." You gotta love the prissy, effete, bureaucratic language here. Be a real woman and call it what it is: torture.

(Note: No single terrorist in US custody has ever suffered more harm in interrogation than every single pilot and special forces soldier there is or has been since the 1960s. The entire argument against enhanced interrogation is so intellectually crippled it does not even arrive at a moral dilemma, just emotional appeal).

But after all, what's so bad about torture? Just because the USA ratified a treaty that banned the use of torture, so what? It's true that the Constitution states that once the USA ratifies a treaty it's the law of the land, but what of it? Only Marxist/Democratic Socialists would care about that. After all, that treaty was signed by one of our most effeminate, limp-wristed, liberal-loving presidents of all time: Ronald Reagan.

As for your claim that "no single terrorist has ever suffered more harm etc....." that must mean that every single pilot and special forces soldier is dead. Because the USA has tortured alleged terrorists to death. I guess this means that our armed forces are made up of zombies.

Here's one source: http://www.vice.com/read/hypothermia-broken-limbs-and-rectal-feeding-details-from-the-cia-torture-report-129

1. Do not bastardize posts by re editing the content and/or deleting the posts in part to change the meaning. You have done this. Don't! Pretty sure its not permitted and your post above shows why!

Enhanced interrogation is the subject. Appeals to emotion aside, torture has never been approved nor argued. Its only what falls loosely or arguably under "enhanced interrogation" that is the subject of discourse. Torture is already covered and illegal under numerous laws. All special forces etc undergo enhanced interrogation, water boarding, etc. This is, after all, the eye candy defining issue of enhanced interrogation.

I am unsure the purpose in the Dulles article VI argument above. The non sequitar of what constitutes the supreme law of the land is hardly fitted well in what point your aiming for. This reasoning is so fallacious as to be absurd.

My point remains valid; it is. US soldiers undergo the same abuses and yes, no, sometimes, lines have been crossed, hypothermia, mistakes, deaths, etc. All in all, many thousands have trained at SERE schools since the 60s and its utility is priceless. No combatant who's an existential threat to America should be afforded protections that we do not expect our own soldiers to be afforded in the battlespace. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/01/cancel_waterboarding_101.html

This defence of torture hangs on three key elements; calling torture 'enhanced interrogation' avoids any legal or moral association with torture; the fact that some US soldiers are subjected to some of these torture techniques gives license for the US military to use such techniques on anyone they choose; and, the end justifies the means and the end is countering an existential threat.

On all three counts, the arguments are both amoral and immoral.

Enhanced Interrogation is torture. It uses techniques that have been classified as torture and have been banned by both international and domestic US law. Offering the pretence that enhanced interrogation and torture are not synonymous is offensive to any logical thinker. Just as Guantanamo Bay is a legal fiction to allow the US to evade international and domestic laws, so the use of the term 'Enhanced Interrogation' is a dishonest attempt to justify the unjustifiable. The little dance over this issue fools nobody.

The article that is referenced above mentions that some of these torture techniques were introduced in the 1960's into special training regimes for some US military forces. Once might ask what objectives were expected at that time in the geopolitical context, remembering that this was the height of the Cold War and whether such objectives are consistent with the current US adventurism in the Middle East. I would suggest that any military organisation that continues to use techniques designed 2 generations ago in an entirely different global and national security context is operating more on inertia that reasoned or strategic thinking and planning. The continued support for the use of torture could well be their version of the Maginot Line. They may be preparing for the wrong war.

Sophocles wrote in Electra circa 409 BC that "The end excuses any evil" http://www.thewallstreetpsychologist.com/recent_posts/the-mystery-of-machiavellis-intentions/ Others, most notably Machiavelli have developed that theme further. The nativist Americans who make a fetish of the Founding Fathers often do not recognise the shoulders on whom the 'Founders' stood. One of these was Immanuel Kant, an 18th Century Prussian who built on Rousseau's work to establish the ideological basis of republican governance, i.e. a people not governed by a sovereign. Kant said that there is only one innate right - Freedom. He wrote in 'Metaphysics of Morals' that "Freedom (independence from being constrained by another's choice), insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law." 6:238 Page 30. The idea that the end justifies the means would appear to directly contradict the ethics and morality and defined by one of the Father's of the Founding Fathers. A Founding Grandfather if you will. In any case, this morally and ethically indefensible notion is posed as a response to an existential threat. This is paranoia and hyperbole of the highest order. Data abounds about the number of deaths in the US caused by ISIS. These antagonists do not pose an existential threat to the World's largest economy with an annual military budget of around USD$700bn and around 300,000 people on active duty.

The poster demonstrates how the American War on Islam has created an incomprehensible situation for the received wisdom on armed conflict. No doubt enormous resources have gone into the analysis of asymmetric warfare and perhaps America will be ready to fight this war after a political solution is reached and the world moves on to the next war.

A defence of torture is not justifiable in any way. Not on the basis of semantic dishonesty, contrived moral equivalency or the moral sovereignty of humankind. Such attempts demean humanity. Kudos to those Americans who served in the military who speak out against torture and other abuses and war crimes committed by the US in defiance of international law and convention. Kudos to David J Morris who did such in the link that the poster provided http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/01/cancel_waterboarding_101.html Such people can start to undo the shame that their colleagues have done in past generations by trying to defend and justify such action. I look forward to a time when all persons who commit war crimes are prosecuted and punished under international law.

[Ulysses G.]

His point is not that torture is good. His point is that pretty much every army uses it and it works. If we stop we will be at a real disadvantage as far as collecting intelligence. What we really need to do is keep using it and denying it as we have been doing since the country was born.

It is proven that torture does not produce reliable information.

But it usually produces the information you want to hear.

Many people will say anything you want them to say if it will stop the torture, if it is the truth or not.

Yes, people will tell you anything to stop the torture - including the truth. That is why intelligence operatives use questioning techniques that separate fact from fiction. They ask the same questions over and over in different ways to see if the terrorist is consistent and heighten the pain if they are not. Since the terrorist will do anything to stop it, it is illogical to claim that it does not work

[crowbait]

There are some real inhuman monsters posting on this subject. No sane member of a civilised society could ever propound the use of torture under any circumstances! I bet none of these people have ever seen a hand where the fingernails have been ripped out or a foot crippled with wedges or genitals scarred with electrical burns. I could go on. You cannot have a quiet intellectual conversation on the benefits or demerits of torture, the very idea of violently restraining and continually assaulting another human until they are screaming in agony should make any normal individual utterly nauseated.

Come on, 'fess up, could you tie someone up and then beat them half to death or waterboard them until they are half strangled, P***ING themselves in fear and shame because if you couldn't, how could you agree that your government should do it on your behalf?

[Rhys]

What did Arnold and Jessie have? Seems whatever it was appealed to the voters..Trump has it ... and uses it more effectively..

[Ulysses G.]

There are some real inhuman monsters posting on this subject. No sane member of a civilised society could ever propound the use of torture under any circumstances!

If some Islamic terrorist scum was going to let off a dirty bomb over San Diego - and there was time to stop them - any decent human being would use any means necessary to stop the murder and suffering of millions.

Personally, I would not even bother with waterboarding. I would do far worse to get the information as quickly as possible. Islamic terrorists would have no mercy on us.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[crowbait]

Then I fear you are no better than the "Islamist terrorist scum" you are seeking to prevent and giving them more excuse (should they need it) to hate you and your culture.

[Ulysses G.]

Islamic terrorists need no excuse to hate. Not being a Muslim is excuse enough to murder countless innocent people and keep on killing.

Jack Nicolson said it best:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be
guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I
have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep
for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have
the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while
tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and
incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because
deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that
wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty.
We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something.
You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination
to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the
very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I
provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your
way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either
way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

Edited March 6, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

This is from another thread, but more on topic here:

People getting bent out of shape about war crimes should perhaps consider how many ISIS war criminals have been tried by the Hague.

Meanwhile people are being raped, tortured and murdered on a daily basis by ISIS. The Geneva convention has completely failed to protect innocent people there.

But hey - the West cant possibly waterboard someone. That wouldnt be nice.

Talk about tying your own hands behind your back.

[Linzz]

Obama (while he is President) has joined Romney is saying Trump will not be President. So if the people want to elect an outsider that career politicians minders and masters do not like and he is prevented from running, then Stalin is right: It isn't the people who decide anything, it's the vote counters who decide everything, so your vote means nothing.

It's not about left or right wingnuttia, or how much you dislike any candidate, it's corruption and money in politics that should sound the alarm.

[Linzz]

Just how high is the embarrassment level in the republican party at all of this? Now that everyone in contention has entered the mud slinging farce throwing playground insults do they not realise that they are becoming a laughing stock across the world. Anyone with integrity would have walked away long ago.

I am a life-long Republican who comes from a long line or Republicans, and I can tell you unequivocally that the embarrassment level is extremely high. Trump and his fanboys are destroying they party and its reputation to stoke his ego and confirm their misguided ignorance. I genuinely fear for the future of the party. However, I won't walk away. It's the unwashed, mouth breathing interlopers who need to either walk away or be kicked out on their asses.

So much for democracy then

[little mary sunshine]

And for the barbaric decapitating monsters, we will

Never resort to any type of intensive interrogation.

Perhaps "just cookies and milk"

and a good talking

To will do.....Wink, Wink!! Give them what ever is

Necessary.

[Jingthing]

Trump is simply unacceptable.

Nobody is stopping the voters but even most republican think Trump would be a disaster. National suicide? Thanks but no thanks.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Jingthing

[stillbornagain]

There are some real inhuman monsters posting on this subject. No sane member of a civilised society could ever propound the use of torture under any circumstances!

If some Islamic terrorist scum was going to let off a dirty bomb over San Diego - and there was time to stop them - any decent human being would use any means necessary to stop the murder and suffering of millions.

Personally, I would not even bother with waterboarding. I would do far worse to get the information as quickly as possible. Islamic terrorists would have no mercy on us.

We're still waiting for that to ever happen. So far it hasn't or anything like it. And even if it did, again, you believe that torture will certainly get the truth out of this "terrorist." And this assumes that you have even got the right person. Which is one of the effects of watching too much TV. There, the writers make it clear so we know who the guilty party is. Real life isn't like that. If you torture the wrong person, you end up with bad information. For someone who professes to be a realist, you seem awfully gullible.

[stillbornagain]

His point is not that torture is good. His point is that pretty much every army uses it and it works. If we stop we will be at a real disadvantage as far as collecting intelligence. What we really need to do is keep using it and denying it as we have been doing since the country was born.

It is proven that torture does not produce reliable information.

But it usually produces the information you want to hear.

Many people will say anything you want them to say if it will stop the torture, if it is the truth or not.

Yes, people will tell you anything to stop the torture - including the truth. That is why intelligence operatives use questioning techniques that separate fact from fiction. They ask the same questions over and over in different ways to see if the terrorist is consistent and heighten the pain if they are not. Since the terrorist will do anything to stop it, it is illogical to claim that it does not work

The facts don't support you. Remember Sheik Khalid Mohammed? Follow this link: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cia-torture-report/rectal-hydration-inside-cias-interrogation-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-n265016

Here's one paragraph from it: "And Mohammed wasn't just holding back, according to the report. He was outright lying, sending U.S. operatives on wild goose chases. Dozens of times, the report describes information the CIA promoted as "critical" as having been "fabricated," "unfounded" or "not supported by internal CIA records."

Forget about the morality of it. It's counterproductive.

What it's really about is satisfying the minds of people whose thought processes are functioning subnormally because of an unsatisfied desire for revenge.

[Ulysses G.]

The facts don't support you.

You are citing ONE CASE and the interrogators realized quickly that he knew they would not kill him with waterboarding, because he had too much information they wanted. Waterboarding is very uncomfortable, but one can be trained to deal with it and many people are. That is why some people do not consider it torture. If they had started cutting off fingers and toes with escalating threats, they might have had better luck.

[Scott]

I worked in the ME for a number of years and saw the results of interrogations using torture. People will almost always confess to anything. The information and confessions were generally useless.

One guy confessed under torture to a string of sexual offenses. He was executed and the following day the offenses started again with the same MO. He was not the perpetrator.

I had a driver who was arrested and accused of spying for an opposing political party. He was tortured, confessed and was within hours of being hung when I arrived in the town where he was detained and explained that he was a driver. He was released. He wasn't even the the person they thought he was.

Extracting information is always going to be a tricky business, but information gotten from torture is about the most unreliable I've ever come across.

[willyumiii]

His point is not that torture is good. His point is that pretty much every army uses it and it works. If we stop we will be at a real disadvantage as far as collecting intelligence. What we really need to do is keep using it and denying it as we have been doing since the country was born.

It is proven that torture does not produce reliable information.

But it usually produces the information you want to hear.

Many people will say anything you want them to say if it will stop the torture, if it is the truth or not.

Yes, people will tell you anything to stop the torture - including the truth. That is why intelligence operatives use questioning techniques that separate fact from fiction. They ask the same questions over and over in different ways to see if the terrorist is consistent and heighten the pain if they are not. Since the terrorist will do anything to stop it, it is illogical to claim that it does not work

The facts don't support you. Remember Sheik Khalid Mohammed? Follow this link: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cia-torture-report/rectal-hydration-inside-cias-interrogation-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-n265016

Here's one paragraph from it: "And Mohammed wasn't just holding back, according to the report. He was outright lying, sending U.S. operatives on wild goose chases. Dozens of times, the report describes information the CIA promoted as "critical" as having been "fabricated," "unfounded" or "not supported by internal CIA records."

Forget about the morality of it. It's counterproductive.

What it's really about is satisfying the minds of people whose thought processes are functioning subnormally because of an unsatisfied desire for revenge.

Some still agree with the good old boy attitude of that wana be cowboy President who was born in Connecticut.

You know, the one who destabilized the middle east by starting two unjustified wars by making up stories about WDS, and gave birth to ISIS.

The little wimp who avoided serving in Vietnam by kind os joing the Guard, who later sent the guard into battle for his pet wars.,

and the one who thought it was O.K> for the US to break International law and torture people.

A little man who jumped at the chance to be a big bully.

That faux cowboy attitude.is still costing us money and lives.

Edited March 7, 2016 by willyumiii