January 23, 2013

"We will look forward to interrogating [John Kerry] mercilessly.... We will bring back for the only time waterboarding to get the truth out of him."

John McCain makes a torture joke.

Is that okay?
  
pollcode.com free polls 

187 comments:

Clyde said...

I picked the last option, but in an ironically sarcastic way. I couldn't actually say that line with a straight face!

MadisonMan said...

McCain makes a lame joke. I don't mind humor, and maybe the delivery made this funny. But as text? Not so much.

Besides, I don't think a Senator could tell the truth even if waterboarded.

Shouting Thomas said...

There's no choice for:

Yes, because it's funny!

EDH said...

Kerry already a victim of Swiftboating, Waterboarding.

Renee said...

I never understood torture. The person who is torturing wants a specific desired answered, true or not. Torture has little to do about finding the truth.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Another option:

No, because McCain had previously thundered against water-boarding, and this sort of thing serves to mock all those who took him at his word.

Kevin said...

Yes, because nobody gives a crap about what McCain has to say about anything, much less Kerry.

Let it all burn. Everything O wants should go in with 100% Republican abstension. But the R's haven't got the guts.

mariner said...

How about "Yes, because it's the only way to get the truth out of John Kerry"?

AllenS said...

I can't stand McCain and I have a huge dislike for Kerry.

MadisonMan said...

The comment is distasteful to me because the underlying assumption is that any Senator will by lying under oath when questioned. I agree with that assumption, and I think the country is so very much the poorer for it.

Mitchell the Bat said...

The joke improved: Now, ordinarily we think swearing on the Bible is enough to get us the truth but for Senator Kerry we'll be bringing in a waterboard.

X said...

John Kerry probably believes his own lies, so it wouldn't work.

Comanche Voter said...

You didn't have an obvious line on the poll. I'd check the box that this was a spectacularly stupid thing for John McCain to say. Sometimes I think that old boy is none too bright.

AJ Lynch said...

The country is in the crapper because of long-serving Congress critters like McCain and Kerry. They have absolutely no reason to joke or laugh about anything.

Seeing Red said...

Water boarding isn't torture for Kerry, taking away his secret hat or his gabillions would be.

Or making him actually pay his taxes.

AprilApple said...

Kerry married a rich woman and then dumped her for a super-rich woman. Then, he didn't pay his boat tax. Kerry ganged up with Jane Fonda and that lead, in my opinion, to more American deaths. The man is an ass.

jr565 said...

HE's obviously joking.

Chip S. said...

It sounds like typical trash talk between friends.

edutcher said...

I went with 1, but 3 did tickle me.

cubanbob said...

I'm all in favor of to torturing John Effing Kerry just for shits and giggles. a POS like him deserves it.

wyo sis said...

Another option

No, because we live in the United States where the privileged get to break any law, custom or social convention they want to as long as they have the protection of progressive politics. (Gregory's Law)

If Kerry said it about McCain the answer would be Yes.

TMink said...

This is tacky because McCain gets his panties in a wad about interrogation techniques. His making jokes about them makes him look senile and without gravitas.

The man knows what actual torture is, so I am a bit surprised he has such a lack of perspective on the issue. Still, if I had been tortured like he was, I might very well have lost my perspective as well.

Trey

Bryan C said...

It was just a joke. He wasn't expecting some kind of Spanish Inquisition!

"Torture has little to do about finding the truth."

It can work pretty well for confirming the truth, though.

Lem said...

Kerry and McCain are bosom buddies... or something.

Dante said...

It's definitely not OK for John McCain to joke about torture. Not because he is probably the only one with direct experience with it, nor because he was honorable about it, and a man of upstanding morals, but because he is a RINO. RINOs are not allowed to make any kind of funny joke that involves any serious topic.

It OK for people like Paul Ryan to make jokes like this. He is a real Republican, and everyone knows they are evil. Jokes like this simply speak for themselves, and everyone knows it is further proof they are evil people.

It is always OK for Democrats and liberals to make any kind of joke they want, but especially when they are not joking at all but being serious, like equating George Bush to Hitler, racist, etc., because these are Democrats, and we all know that means they are good people and can never do or say anything wrong.

McTriumph said...

I don't like either Kerry or McCain, but I give McCain a pass on his dark humor, he's been there. McCain's problem with humor is that he that he that he usually laughs at his own dark jokes, although that may be his way of indicating it's a joke.

By the way, torture does work. It always worked for Sister Mary Teresa in third grade.

In other news, Hillary is testifying, the dems are all performing cunnilingus on her. McCain is the only one asking serious questions.

campy said...

America sure dodged a bullet in that 2008 election.

Chip S. said...

Getting worked up about something this trivial is the kind of public reaction that induces every politician to be a robotic spewer of banalities.

Michael K said...

It was in very poor taste. McCain is trying to ridicule those of us of us who don't think waterboarding, as it was used, was torture. He doesn't have much of a sense of humor. He is actually kind of a jerk. I did support him in 2000 but he was a better option than Bush.

sane_voter said...

There were two bullets in that 2008 election, not sure which one was the higher caliber but we were gonna get hit either way.

Seeing Red said...

Good thing Kerry left his comrades in arms before they actually started talking about killing 7 million businessmen/bourgeoisie to jumpstart the revolution.

Seeing Red said...

Or was his group only gonna kill a few Senators?

It was so long ago, boys will be boys.

Clyde said...

@ McTriumph

I sure hope those D's are using dental dams.

Bruce Hayden said...

Hate it when these polls force me to pick one of several good answers.

I am maybe a bit surprised if McCain and Kerry were that bosom of buddies. Most of the Vietnam vets I know, no matter how liberal they normally are, despise Kerry for how he publicly defamed them and their sacrifices during his fraudulent testimony before Congress. When it turned out that his testimony was false, that should have disqualified him for public office thereafter, and probably would have in most states. Of course, in MA, lying seems to be a prerequisite for that office, at least for Dems - think fauxahauntus Warren who is now the junior Senator, now sitting in the seat of their sainted drunken vehicular homicidalist, Teddy Kennedy, who had previously been expelled from Harvard for lying. Sure, politicians lie, but it appears that MA Dems have to be caught publicly doing so in order to gain Senate seats.

Hagar said...

Chip S. has it right; just typical thrash talk of no significance one way or the other.

Sorun said...

Joking about waterboarding is politically incorrect. Instead, joke about giving him a root canal without anesthesia.

BTW, recently read a book written by a former SEAL. Apparently they get waterboarded as a part of their training.

campy said...

There were two bullets in that 2008 election, not sure which one was the higher caliber but we were gonna get hit either way.

Sadly true.

Levi Starks said...

not enough choices,

No- Because McCain isn't a leftwing comedian like John Stuart, Then it would be really funny.

Lem said...

My hart was split btwg the 2nd and 3rd, so I went with 3.

As we learned today... In Roman times, a little soaking with water would not have been considered torture.

Scott M said...

McCain going Alinsky?

traditionalguy said...

Somebody needs to water board Man-Ti Teo. Like Kerry, we are told to assume a subjects good faith intentions exist in their heart matter what the facts may show.

Maybe we should support Man-Ti Teo for Secretary of State.

ricpic said...

It's revealing. Statists, be they McCain, Kerry, Bush or Obama, love the power that exempts them from ordinary human restraints.

Lyle said...

Waterboarding and torture can't be taken any more seriously than droning people. Droning is killing people for Christ's sake.

Christopher Hitchens voluntarliy had it done to him in twice. He said it was torture, but he voluntarily had it done to himself twice.


bagoh20 said...

"I never understood torture. The person who is torturing wants a specific desired answered, true or not"

I see why your don't understand it. If just telling a lie worked to end it, nobody would ever bother to use torture. They don't just accept any answer and send you home in business class.

Robert Cook said...

No, because our government has utilized torture in our so-called "war on terror" and for a member of our government to make a joke about high crimes committed by our government is appalling.

Robert Cook said...

"I never understood torture. The person who is torturing wants a specific desired answered, true or not. Torture has little to do about finding the truth."

It has to do with several things:

1.)It guarantees that the torture-masters can extract any confessions they want from any person, the better to justify their agenda;

2.) It is the expression of power for its own sake, to terrorize those who would oppose the torture-masters;

3.) It reflects the debased nature of those in power.

Maguro said...

The whole subject is incredibly dull and pointless, a stale rehash of last decade's partisan political quarrels. It's just an excuse for douchebags like Freder to engage in moral grandstanding.

The torture issue has been solved by Obama, instead of capturing terrorists and interrogating them, we assassinate them with missiles fired from drones. And while the human rights brigade isn't crazy about drone-fired missiles, they're still a lot more worked up about waterboarding, even though it hasn't been done in years. Cause Bush is bad and Obama is awesome, I guess.

Overall, I'm just sick of hearing about it.

Robert Cook said...

"Christopher Hitchens voluntarliy had it done to him in twice. He said it was torture, but he voluntarily had it done to himself twice."

That's because he had the power to stop it whenever he wanted.

This is not so for those on whom it is applied in the field.

wyo sis said...

A possible 7th choice
No, because you can only break laws, conventions, social taboos, or logic if you are a progressive with media ties. (Known as Gregory's Law)
If Kerry said it then, Yes.

bagoh20 said...

The problem with "torture" is that the word is almost meaningless. We need other words for lasting physical damage, physical pain without damage, and just getting scared. Waterboarding is just being scared. We scare the shit out of ourselves all the time, even desire and pay for the privilege.

How can you equate harmless, even if terrifying, treatment to having someone drill a few holes in you, or pull out fingernails. I can't see the intelligence of one word to cover both things?

AllenS said...

Suspected terorists are still being tortured, just not by us, but by others for us. These people torturing on our behalf aren't using this sissy shit we call waterboarding.

bagoh20 said...

Drone warfare is a lot closer to murder and even real torture than waterboarding is to real torture.

Kirk Parker said...

Renee,

"I never understood torture."

Clearly illustrated by:

"The person who is torturing wants a specific desired answered, true or not. Torture has little to do about finding the truth."

How on earth can you make these blanket statements? Surely there's at least some variation, among incidents of torture, as to motivation, direction of questioning, searching for independently verifiable but previously unknown information, etc...

Kirk Parker said...

"There were two bullets in that 2008 election,"

Indeed, but only one of them was dipped in poison.

bagoh20 said...

Isn't holding someone in jail for contempt of court a form of torture?

Isn't the plea bargain process as well?

How about penalties for not answering the census?

Colonel Angus said...

The person who is torturing wants a specific desired answered, true or not. Torture has little to do about finding the truth."

Not necessarily. If you say, start clipping off the fingers of a child rapist to find out where he hid his victim, the truth is in both parties interest.

If he lies, then there are 9 more opportunities for him to tell the truth.

EMD said...

I voted not funny enough.

EMD said...

Nor offensive enough.

You can't half-ass humor like this. You have to be committed.

tiger said...

Or F) because who is above being made the butt of a joke especially the French speaking, married to a 1%er, tax-dodging, liar before Congress, Purple Heart wound faking and geographically deficient John F. Kerry who also, by the way, also served in Viet Nam?

Lyle said...

Robert Cook,

And whoever it is being done to doesn't die, and they've still got their fingers and toes when all is said and done.

There has been fraternity hazing that is worse.

Great, lets feel good about ourselves and not waterboard violent Islamists, and lets just keep on killing them with missiles. It makes no sense whatsoever to capture people if they're just going to be put in a cell and fed, not give up any information, and then get lawyered up for years and years for some kind of never ending legal back and forth. Not to mention all the rancor caused by people and countries wanting their release.



LarsPorsena said...

Bryan C said...

It was just a joke. He wasn't expecting some kind of Spanish Inquisition!

"Torture has little to do about finding the truth."

It can work pretty well for confirming the truth, though.

1/23/13, 9:55 AM

___________________________________

like:
I want the account number
I want the password
I want the address
I wan the name

Colonel Angus said...

Great, lets feel good about ourselves and not waterboard violent Islamists, and lets just keep on killing them with missiles.

Based upon previous conversations with Mr. Cook, he believes killing terrorists with missiles is equally appalling. In point of fact, Mr. Cook doesn't believe they are terrorists at all, except for the United States of course.



Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

It's an inappropriate thing to say.

(But then McCain often shows himself out of his depth as a Senator.)

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

Oh. And Kerry? Yeah, he's way in over his head also.

Kerry is a whiner, bullshitter, and panderer. McCain is just weird; a "maverick" true, but without any sense of direction.

bagoh20 said...

"(But then McCain often shows himself out of his depth as a Senator.)"

Have you seen his colleagues? That's a shallow pool.

Tank said...

Why waste time with waterboarding? Do it the Zero Way. Just blow up his mansion with him in it. Drone on brother.

What an odd world we're living in where waterboarding is evil, but killing people instead is AOK.

jr565 said...

"I never understood torture. The person who is torturing wants a specific desired answered, true or not"

we need to understand interrogation versus torture. Was interrogation used so that any answer true or not could be provided or did they want a true answer?
There is such a thing as just inflicting pain on people (stuff that Sadaam would do) just to be mean but interrogation differs in that you are trying to get true information.
But the better question is do you think soft interrogation works? Or any interrogation works, leaving aside "torture". If it does, then why wouldn't enhanced interrogations work along the same principle. It's not as if you use a more enhanced method that somehow you wouldnt verify the information that you would in a softer interrogation.

Ann Althouse said...

"I never understood torture. The person who is torturing wants a specific desired answered, true or not. Torture has little to do about finding the truth."

Lets say you are trying to break up and terrorist network. What you want is who people are, where they are and so forth. You act on the info and if it doesn't pan out, you get back to the source, pressuring him about what you think he misled you about. That goes back and forth.

You seem to only be thinking about extracting a confession to use to convict a person for something in the past. Think about an ongoing investigation where you're motivating someone to get it right, as they try to avoid more torture.

See how it works?

Robert Cook said...

"Drone warfare is a lot closer to murder and even real torture than waterboarding is to real torture."

Uh, drone warfare is murder.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

Madison Man said "The comment is distasteful to me because the underlying assumption is that any Senator will by lying under oath when questioned. I agree with that assumption, and I think the country is so very much the poorer for it."

That nails it.

Baron Zemo said...

Well murder is Obama's prefered manner of dealing with it. The liberals have nothing to say about it. Hollywood is silent. It is a-ok with the Maddows of the world because the Jug Eared Jesus can do no wrong.

Get used to it Cookie. Obama can do whatever he wants and get away with it.

Hell I wouldn't be surprised if he decided it was time for some drone strikes at gun shows or something.

You know. For the childrens.

McTriumph said...

"There has been fraternity hazing that is worse."

How true, I sent a pledge to Menningers, gotta get rid of the weak links and pussies.

I never understood why the CIA never employed old school nuns for interrogation. A constant diet of rules on knuckles, yard sticks on one's ass and perfect curves and fastball chalkboard erasers thrown in one's face will make anyone talk. Plus, before they started to dress like bag ladies, their habits were intimidating and demanding of respect. WTF, it's a religious war in reality, regardless of what Obama says, we'll be at war for decades.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

AJ Lynch said... "The country is in the crapper because of long-serving Congress critters like McCain and Kerry. They have absolutely no reason to joke or laugh about anything."

And that, too. Two terms at any level of government (City, County, State, National) is all anyone gets from me. Don't care how good they are at the job. Two terms is enough.

Robert Cook said...

"The problem with 'torture' is that the word is almost meaningless. We need other words for lasting physical damage, physical pain without damage, and just getting scared."

Any of the above either is or can be torture, even just "scaring" someone. Torture is not just that which causes "lasting physical damage." In fact, a reality of torture is that it tends to leave psychological damage that is more long lasting than the physical damage.

It's really simple: a person (or nation) of conscience should not in any way abuse prisoners who are helpless to resist. Even so much as a punch or a slap to a bound prisoner's face or body should cause a person of conscience to feel revulsion, and a person of good conscience should refuse to participate or countenance even so minimal an assault on a helpless prisoner.

Baron Zemo said...

I hope they ask Kerry about where the Obama administration intends to cut defense spending. We know that they are going to cut it but it would be useful to know where.

I think some cuts would be warranted. Like all military aid to places like Egypt or Turkey or Europe for that matter. Bring the boys home from so many of these overseas missions that we don't need to be involved with anymore. Like Korea for example.

Let them take care of themselves. Gangnan Style.

Robert Cook said...

"Well murder is Obama's prefered manner of dealing with it."

Yes...Obama is a mass murderer, a war criminal.

Robert Cook said...

"Get used to it Cookie. Obama can do whatever he wants and get away with it."

We'd all better get used to it. Obama has normalized it and all future presidents will be able to murder with impunity whenever they want and get away with it, too.

Baron Zemo said...

We agree Cookie.

But that is a racist comment don't you see buddy.

They are going to make you come out of the tree and you can't go to the Capitol anymore.

Be careful buddy.

Baron Zemo said...

However I don't believe that all Presidents will be able to do that. At least not without the lap dog media going crazy.

They will lose their shit if a Republican President gives a terrorist a parking ticket.

Dante said...

Lets say you are trying to break up and terrorist network. What you want is who people are, where they are and so forth. You act on the info and if it doesn't pan out, you get back to the source, pressuring him about what you think he misled you about. That goes back and forth.

I'm thinking of Little Bill from "The Unforgiven.":

“Now Ned, them whores are going to tell different lies than you. And when their lies ain’t the same as your lies... Well, I ain’t gonna hurt no woman. But I’m gonna hurt you. And not gentle like before... but bad.”

In other words, it's even better if you have more than one terrorist, because then you create a prisoner's dilemma.

Robert Cook said...

"There is such a thing as just inflicting pain on people (stuff that Sadaam would do) just to be mean but interrogation differs in that you are trying to get true information."

No matter the purported goal or motivation, it's all torture.

"But the better question is do you think soft interrogation works?"

It's not just a matter of "thinking" it may work...it has been demonstrated to work.

Tibore said...

People, it's McCain. He's never been about the non-offensive jokes. This is the same guy who said "The beauty of Alzheimer's is that you get to hide your own Easter Eggs".

If you're expecting a guy that old to change, well... good luck with that. He's who he is, and thinking different is expecting too much.

McTriumph said...

Baron
The left doesn't want all those gun nuts sworn to uphold the Constitution back home, besides Obama's unemployment numbers would zoom, zoom , zoom.

Baron Zemo said...

You know if McCain really wants to torture someone he should have them date his daughter. Just sayn'

BDNYC said...

How about "yes, because it is only mildly offensive"? McCain may enjoy special privilege, but the joke is fine no matter who told it, in my opinion.

Shouting Thomas said...

Obama has normalized it and all future presidents will be able to murder with impunity whenever they want and get away with it, too.

No, only Democrats.

And, especially if they're black.

Scott M said...

Uh, drone warfare is murder.

So a marine unit on patrol comes under ambush or otherwise involved in a fire-fight and calls for air support. There's a UAV loitering over the area for that specific purpose. The controller directs the UAV weapons on to the enemy positions.

So you're saying any enemy killed during this action would have been murdered?

Dante said...

It's really simple: a person (or nation) of conscience should not in any way abuse prisoners who are helpless to resist. Even so much as a punch or a slap to a bound prisoner's face or body should cause a person of conscience to feel revulsion, and a person of good conscience should refuse to participate or countenance even so minimal an assault on a helpless prisoner.

That's probably correct. I was revolted when my dog harmed a chicken, not because he was hungry, but because it was fun. Poor terrified chickens. One dead, one hurt.

But guess what. There are people out there who want to kill innocent people. And they don't care if they hurt those helpless people.

So I say it is legitimate to use means to get information. I don't agree with those who say "It doesn't work." So you have a choice of two evils.

Hurt the helpless prisoner, who is presumably not innocent, or by your inability to act because it is revolting, allow innocent and helpless people to die?

Baron Zemo said...

What Cookie is saying is drone attacks on terrorist targets not directly engaging US troops is in fact legalized murder. He is right.

Agree or disagree with it but call it what it is.

Legalized murder without a trial or hearing. Perfectly ok with the press and the libs as long as it is the Jug Eared Jesus who is pushing the button.

bagoh20 said...

" and a person of good conscience should refuse to participate or countenance even so minimal an assault on a helpless prisoner."

No matter how many innocents die and suffer, just make sure you keep your conscience clean. Got it.

I wanna come live in your world too. It sounds nice and much easier on everyone.

Dante said...

It's not just a matter of "thinking" it may work...it has been demonstrated to work.

After I told one of my kids not to, he ran out into the street. The very same street in which some teenager drove his manly pickup truck too fast over my cat and killed it.

So I spanked my kid, right in front of the other kids.

Now at least, I know if the kid runs out in the street, and gets killed by the teenager, or maimed, at least I know I've done everything possible.

Oh, and of course, that came along with lots of pre-counselling on the dangers of that road, and how it's good not to be bratty.

But, kids are kids, they do naughty things. And terrorists are terrorists, they will do bad things too.

Shouting Thomas said...

What Cookie is saying is drone attacks on terrorist targets not directly engaging US troops is in fact legalized murder. He is right.

Yes, and the uglier reality behind that is that there is no check on this president because he's black.

The press refuses to do its job.

A very dangerous situation.

Robert Cook said...

"Based upon previous conversations with Mr. Cook, he believes killing terrorists with missiles is equally appalling."

What's appalling is that we kill people with drones without knowing who they even are, the government's claims notwithstanding. By our example, another nation--China or Russia, say--could blow up people in the streets of America and, whoever those killed may have been, declare themselves justified because they "killed a group of high-level terrorist leaders."

We don't want police opening fire willy nilly on public streets for fear innocents will be hit. Is it rational to assume shooting and blowing up a bomb at a person or persons on a public street--even assuming for argument's sake the person(s) targeted are terrorists--will not somehow also blow up innocents nearby? (Which they do...blow up innocents, that is.)

"In point of fact, Mr. Cook doesn't believe they are terrorists at all...."

No...we don't know who they are. We haven't established a credible or legal basis for killing "them," whoever "they" are.

It has already been published that the Obama administration has set a policy that in certain areas they simply define all men above a certain age to be "terrorists." How convenient for committing mass slaughter and keeping a clean conscience!

Baron Zemo said...

Cookie is an absolutist.

I have to say I admire him.

I mean he is not a bullshit artist like garage or harrogate or somefeller or the Execrable Inga who excuse any crime that Obama does when they would lose their shit if a Republican did it.

He actually believes in what he says. That is pretty rare these days.

dbp said...

I don't know if torture would work on Senator Kerry. He did willingly marry Teresa Heinz, so maybe he likes pain.

Shouting Thomas said...

Cookie, I am loathe to agree with you...

But, the fact that this president is black and a Democrat has left us with no way of placing any checks on his power.

The press is too enthralled with Obama's blackness to do its job.

Robert Cook said...

"I wanna come live in your world too. It sounds nice and much easier on everyone."

It's the world our forefathers sought to erect in writing the Constitution and adding the Bill of Rights.

Baron Zemo said...

You shouldn't worry about agreement with Cookie when he is telling the truth.

I guess only both ends of the spectrum can recognize what this unchecked barbarism of this President is doing to our Constitution.

Colonel Angus said...

So you're saying any enemy killed during this action would have been murdered?

Mr. Cook has been consistent in his belief that we are the terrorists in the 'so called war on terror' so I would venture a guess his response would be in the affirmative.

Robert Cook said...

"Hurt the helpless prisoner, who is presumably not innocent...."

If the prisoner has not been proved under law to be guilty of crimes, he is presumed to be innocent. After all, most of those supposed "worst of the worst" who were held for years at Gitmo were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, of any terrorist activities or ties, as even our military has admitted, as our government has admitted in releasing most of them...after years of imprisonment.

bagoh20 said...

"What Cookie is saying is drone attacks on terrorist targets not directly engaging US troops is in fact legalized murder. He is right."

Of course it's never that simple, or otherwise only soldiers would die in wars. As soon as you decide to protect any group of the population you are at war with, you have decided to either loose or make them the cannon fodder and shields putting them in even more danger. Or you can decide to just quit and go home, because you don't have the stomach to beat any evil determined enemy.

Colonel Angus said...

It's really simple: a person (or nation) of conscience should not in any way abuse prisoners who are helpless to resist. Even so much as a punch or a slap to a bound prisoner's face or body should cause a person of conscience to feel revulsion, and a person of good conscience should refuse to participate or countenance even so minimal an assault on a helpless prisoner.

You're right it is simple. On the other hand, if I had someone who had kidnapped my wife or child, I would not hesitate for a nano second to shame an Inquisator to find their whereabouts.

But that's just me.

William said...

Listening to Kerry drone on is a form of water boarding. The refusal of the Democrats to prohibit prolonged statements from this man highlights their hypocrisy and double standards.....Can anyone name an anti-war activist whose zeal was diminished by the fact that the North Vietnamese used torture and murder to achieve their goals?

Colonel Angus said...

After all, most of those supposed "worst of the worst" who were held for years at Gitmo were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, of any terrorist activities or ties, as even our military has admitted, as our government has admitted in releasing most of them...after years of imprisonment.

This might come as a shock to you but we release prisoners all the time who weren't innocent.

Robert Cook said...

"So a marine unit on patrol comes under ambush or otherwise involved in a fire-fight and calls for air support. There's a UAV loitering over the area for that specific purpose. The controller directs the UAV weapons on to the enemy positions."

Most of our drone strikes have not been this sort of scenario at all. They have mostly been cases where anonymous figures on the ground in non-combat theaters "look suspicious" to unknown military personnel who are tracking them thousands of miles away, and so the order is given to blow them away. After the fact, without having American boots on the ground to collect the pieces of the bodies and identify who it was we just obliterated, it is announced that "high level Al Qaeda operatives were killed today" in such and such a place.

Colonel Angus said...

They have mostly been cases where anonymous figures on the ground in non-combat theaters "look suspicious" to unknown military personnel who are tracking them thousands of miles away, and so the order is given to blow them away.

It's probably the gaggle of men carrying AK-47s and RPGs that triggers that suspicious part.

Unless of course you have access to drone surveillance video we don't.

Robert Cook said...

"This might come as a shock to you but we release prisoners all the time who weren't innocent."

But in this case they were.

How would you feel if you or yours were captured by a foreign country, thrown without due process into a prison and held for years--whether tortured or not--and them simply released abruptly, without apology or explanation or recompense?

Wouldn't you feel the other country acted abominably...criminally? Wouldn't it make you see them as villains...wouldn't you hate them?

Of course you would. You wouldn't see the other country as a (or the) bastion of freedom and justice in the world...because they wouldn't be.

And neither are we.

Hagar said...

Drone attacks in support of troops under fire is one thing. Drone attacks to assassinate "terrorist leaders" quite another.
And it is not "legalized" just because "the president does it."

Another thing that I have not seen reflected on, here or elsewhere, is that there is a common understanding between warring nations that we do not use poison gas, and we do not assassinate each other's leaders, or there will be a tit for tat response.

Now, the idea of armed remote controlled aircraft is a simple one, and there is no need for anything that a tinkerer can't make in his garage or basement in order to stage an off-the-wall attack that can't be foreseen or protected against. Our government need to think about that. Turnabout is considered fair play the world over!

McTriumph said...

Scott
"So you're saying any enemy killed during this action would have been murdered?"

Key word is "action", a battle. How different is a drone strike on a family different than a terrorist bomb under the bed of a US soldier on leave with his family back in the USA.

In the end, all this equivocation will be meaningless. We will appease ourselves in to extinction or the West will understand the existential threat and start carpet bombing whole villages. Something our "greatest generation" understood, break their fucking backs.

Hagar said...

And the same goes for waterboarding and other forms of torture, besides the morality of it.

Baron Zemo said...

I think what Cookie is saying is correct. As is what Colonel Angus is saying as well. Same with Shouting Thomas.

Drone strikes are killing "civilians" who are targeted because they are carying guns and are deemed a threat to US interests and the liberals and lapdog media don't care because their boy Obama is doing it.

Hmmmmm. Civilians carrying guns who Obama thinks might be dangerous. Without any review or oversight. Or even hard questions.

Think about that one for a minute.


Robert Cook said...

"It's probably the gaggle of men carrying AK-47s and RPGs that triggers that suspicious part.

"Unless of course you have access to drone surveillance video we don't."


Or cameras...as the video released to Wikileaks by Bradley Manning showed. Of course, those men weren't killed by drone, but by live pilots in a helicopter.

Then they fired on other men who came to attend to the bodies of the men on the ground...including killing two children in a van, and then joking, "Hey, they shouldn't have brought children to a battlefield," (or words to that effect). Well, it hadn't been a battlefield until we fired rockets at a group of men walking openly in the street.

You have have no more idea than I who these people are we're killing, or whether they should be killed. If you accept or approve the murder from above of anonymous people on the ground who are not firing on our soldiers or noncombatants in the area, you are accepting and approving of murder.

Baron Zemo said...

You know Cookie might have something there.

Maybe those towelheads have the right to keep and bear arms in their own country. Just sayn'

Robert Cook said...

Baron Zemo,

You've made a very good point.

Shouting Thomas said...

Hmmmmm. Civilians carrying guns who Obama thinks might be dangerous. Without any review or oversight. Or even hard questions.

Sometimes, I think that the complete lack of an adversarial press will be Obama's undoing.

There's nothing stopping him from using presidential power in any arbitrary fashion he wants.

Which might lead to abuses yet to be imagined.

Shouting Thomas said...

We got two more categories of protected classes to be paraded through the presidency... gays and women (only Democrats, of course).

So, we have to go through at least two more terms of presidents that the press fawns over and places above criticism or restraint.

That should be entertaining.

garage mahal said...

it's the world our forefathers sought to erect in writing the Constitution and adding the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights has been surrendered to the war on terror. Next, your Social Security and pensions will be surrendered to the finance sharks, then it will all be complete. All without firing a shot. That's why it's so funny hearing the ginned up rubes say Obama is coming for their guns. The government doesn't need them.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, garage, have you started prepping?

Baron Zemo said...

Hey Garage your boy Obama is the one doing it. He pushed the envelope on these issues.

Where's the protest buddy?

Oh I know.

BBBBBUUUUUSSSSSHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Baron Zemo said...

I think the only thing we can hope for is that Obama does something so egregious that even the lapdog press and ass kissing libs will be taken aback and call him to account.

Let's see.

Sending guns to Mexican drug cartels to use to kill law enforcement personal. Nope.

Not enforcing the law against voter intimidation because it was done by the Black Panthers. Nope.

Not trying to save our ambassador and letting him be murdered and dragged through the streets without even attempting to save him. Nope.

Gee. I don't know what he could do.

Do you?

garage mahal said...

Hey Garage your boy Obama is the one doing it.

It's all very bipartisan. Feingold was the only senator that voted against the Patriot Act.

Seeing Red said...

-- Next, your Social Security and pensions will be surrendered to the finance sharks, then it will all be complete. ---

20K non-union Delphi pensions were already surrendered under Geitner's orders.

And GM bond holders were KELO'd.


Oh, wait, under GM's scenario, it's already complete, we're being monetized under Obama.

Baron Zemo said...

But the level of drone attacks has expanded exponentially under Obama. And I thought he was going to close Gitmo and stop rendition and all the other stuff that got all your libs panties in a twist.

Now it is a-ok because the Jug Eared Jesus can do no wrong.

So I guess all you guys owe Bush and Chaney an apology. Or if not you are just as outraged now that Obama is doing it. Right?

Baron Zemo said...

Hey there are a lot of crickets in here.

Cedarford said...

Baron Zemo said...
What Cookie is saying is drone attacks on terrorist targets not directly engaging US troops is in fact legalized murder. He is right.

Agree or disagree with it but call it what it is.

Legalized murder without a trial or hearing. Perfectly ok with the press and the libs as long as it is the Jug Eared Jesus who is pushing the button.


Trooper York has his head up his ass.
No surprise.
He apparantly believes that any use of military force outside direct physical self-defense from attacking enemy is legalized MURDER!!!

D-Day was legalized murder, so was Iwo Jima, since we were the attackers on peaceful Occupied positions. It appears...


Next up, The Trooper will explain why failure to give anyone free birth control, short of someone who was raped, is in fact enslavement of women as breeders.



bagoh20 said...

"We got two more categories of protected classes to be paraded through the presidency..."

But the protected class will grow to meet our needs in this area. The handicapped, and little people, vegans, fat people, and eventually pedophiles, and finally we get to white males, and then start over.

Baron Zemo said...

I don't know Cedarford. Dropping a bomb on a bunch of people in another country just because we think they "might" be terrorists or they are carrying guns or something seems a lot like murder to me.

But I understand how it wouldn't bother you because you thought putting Jews in ovens was just good housekeeping.

Mazel Tov!

Dante said...

How would you feel if you or yours were captured by a foreign country, thrown without due process into a prison and held for years--whether tortured or not--and them simply released abruptly, without apology or explanation or recompense?

I'll tell you how I would feel. Mad as hell. I would be screwed up for life, and would never be able to be a US senator like John McCain did.

But so what. I could get cancer and die from it, and potentially in a horrifying way. Or I could become screwed up emotionally for life because some San Francisco Liberal Judge decided to integrate the San Francisco schools, and I and about 3 other whites went to a school of white hating blacks.

Unfortunately, you have to protect the clan US. If innocents get screwed along the way, all I can say is I hope it is minimized without adding additional risk to our own.

And if that doesn't do it for you, then all I can say is "You can't handle the truth."

Lem said...

The correct answer is..

Yes, because waterboarding is enhanced interrogation and not torture.

AllenS said...

Robert Cook said...
What's appalling is that we kill people with drones without knowing who they even are, the government's claims notwithstanding.

Oh, we know who we are killing. We know this because someone else has had the fuck tortured out of him and has given up information. Been following the news lately? Constantly, we are informed of the importance of who has been killed by drone. How do you think that this administration knows that? The only reason that the media isn't upset about this is because it isn't being done by a Republican.

bagoh20 said...

Obama does something so egregious that even the lapdog press and ass kissing libs will be taken aback and call him to account."

Yea, I can't see such a scenario.

Beating a baby seal to death with a puppy?

Nope, there is an explanation for that too. Global Warming and Rabies forced his hand, and racism. The seal called him "cornball".

traditionalguy said...

Interestingly, the world in 1939 was composed of three players: the British Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Japanese Empire and the target of them all which was controlling fragments of a Chinese Empire. Oh yes there was also a small isolationist country called The United States and a German Third Reich raised up again to a power player by Hitler.

Five years later only the American Empire and the Russian Empire were the power players left standing.

Those two detented or cold warred between themselves forty years until Reagin's wisdom won and there was only one power player left.

Since then, resolving American Hegemony in favor of a world federation has been the goal of the Russian Empire, the Chinese Empire and an alliance of German French and British and Italians called the EU. Kerry happens to think that is in America's interest.

McCain comes from a family of traditional American Military leaders that for three generations has opposed everything Kerry stands for.



Baron Zemo said...

We can handle the truth. Just tell the truth.

We are murdering civilians in other countries with drone attacks because we think they are terrorists. Think.

These are not armies behind defenses when we have declared war like that idiot Cedarford cites. Tell the truth. You can think it is a good thing or a bad thing. But call it what it is.

Personally I don't care if they blow up every towelhead and camel jockey in the world. But that doesn't change the fact that it is legalized murder that is being ignored by the libs and the lapdog media because the Jug Eared Jesus is doing it.

Call a spade a spade. So to speak.

Seeing Red said...

It's gonna be fun to see Inga square the Kerry circle.

Back in the 60s, Inga's SIL would have been one to have been put up against the wall and shot to jumpstart the revolution.

"Guilty as sin, free as a bird."

Baron Zemo said...

Obama could rape and dismember and cook and eat Honey Boo Boo on national television and the lapdog media would not have a problem with it in any way shape or form.

Well maybe with the condiments.

virgil xenophon said...

"How does one end a war? Very simple. One kills as many of the enemy as one can as fast as one can until they can't take it anymore. And then the war ends."

-------Curtis LeMay

chickelit said...

Traditional Guy wrote:
McCain comes from a family of traditional American Military leaders that for three generations has opposed everything Kerry stands for.

Bravo!

chickelit said...

Baron Zemo said...
I don't know Cedarford. Dropping a bomb on a bunch of people in another country just because we think they "might" be terrorists or they are carrying guns or something seems a lot like murder to me.

How do you justify Hiroshima then?

Colonel Angus said...

Next, your Social Security and pensions will be surrendered to the finance sharks,

I'm confident the massive debt we are incurring on an annual basis will destroy those long before Wall Street gets its hands on it.

Baron Zemo said...

Well that was a war chickie. A declared war. At end of a long war and in the interest of saving millions of american lives.

But let me ask you something. If we went to war with lets say I don't know Egypt. Or better yet Saudi Arabia. They send over terrorists and kill a bunch of Americans and attack us in every way possible.

Would we drop the big one on them?

Do you think we should?

damikesc said...

This is not so for those on whom it is applied in the field.

Deaths from waterboarding: 0

Say, Cookie, how many people died by your preferred comrades "enhanced interrogation techniques"?


That being said...I do respect your consistency. Don't agree with you, but you're damned consistent.

Robert Cook said...

"Interestingly, the world in 1939 was composed of three players: the British Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Japanese Empire...."

I don't think you could really say Russia had an empire in 1939.

Post WWII the Soviets did exert great influence over a number of nearby countries that might arguably have been perceived as an "empire," of sorts.

Robert Cook said...

"How do you justify Hiroshima then?"

Any way we can.

That was mass murder, though, and not justifiable.

Dante said...

We can handle the truth. Just tell the truth.

We are murdering civilians in other countries with drone attacks because we think they are terrorists. Think.


In my view, the truth is the constitution isn't set up to deal with Terrorism. The problem is geographic boundaries don't pose the issues they used to when the fastest way from point "A" to "B" was with a horse or a camel.

That, and much of the liberal interpretation of the constitution. But, that's another story, and I don't have the time, nor even the inclination, to understand all the different definitions people have settled upon, such as "person," vs. "people," etc.

Colonel Angus said...

Or cameras...as the video released to Wikileaks by Bradley Manning showed. Of course, those men weren't killed by drone, but by live pilots in a helicopter.

You mean the group of men carrying what looked a lot like shoulder mounted weapons?

Robert Cook said...

"Yes, because waterboarding is enhanced interrogation and not torture."

Enhanced Interrogation is just a "nicer" word for torture, as the Nazis also recognized.

edutcher said...

May I suggest to both Cook and chick (and anybody else who's interested) a book called "Hell to Pay", which lays out in ghastly and agonizing detail the estimates* for an over-the-beach invasion of the Japanese Home Islands, which did a lot to drive the dropping of the 2 bombs.

*Many of which are only recently declassified.

Robert Cook said...

"You mean the group of men carrying what looked a lot like shoulder mounted weapons?"

Yes. Several of those "weapons" were cameras, as the men carrying them were journalists.

That said, unknown men carrying weapons in public in another country is not sufficient evidence that they are "terrorists" or that we have any credible basis to kill them.

Colonel Angus said...

How do you justify Hiroshima then?"

Any way we can.

That was mass murder, though, and not justifiable.


It was to the US troops who were facing the prospect of invading Japan.

Although I suspect the deaths of tens of thousands of US soldiers was more palatable to you then ending it swiftly with a couple of bombs.

chickelit said...

Appreciate the offer edutcher, but I'm disagreeing with both the good Baron and with Cook.

chickelit said...

Cook is apparently a pacifist. This may be because he believes strongly in the 6th Commandment*--without exception--or perhaps he sympathizes with an old enemy.
__________
*I would greatly appreciate the opinion of anyone here regarding the Greek or Aramic verb used in that text.

Robert Cook said...

"Deaths from waterboarding: 0"

Your point? The point of torture is not to kill the persons subjected to it, (although there were persons we tortured who died as a result.)

Colonel Angus said...

That said, unknown men carrying weapons in public in another country is not sufficient evidence that they are "terrorists" or that we have any credible basis to kill them.

It is if we are engaged in hostilities.

Baron Zemo said...

"How do you justify Hiroshima then?"

Kei Igawa!

Robert Cook said...

"It was to the US troops who were facing the prospect of invading Japan."

A canard. Japan was essentially already defeated and was reportedly ready to surrender. We dropped the bombs to provide an example to the Russians of our might rather than to defeat an already defeated enemy.

Robert Cook said...

"It is if we are engaged in hostilities."

Well, we certainly are, but we don't know they were.

In fact, we really have no basis to have started our wars in the first place, and less than no reason to continue our decade and more rampage of destruction and murder.

The thing we should do is simply pick up and leave. It won't undo the devastation we have wrought, but we will at least have stopped.

Robert Cook said...

"Cook is apparently a pacifist."

Generally speaking, yes, as all sane persons must be. However, in circumstances were we must fight to defend ourselves against potentially existential aggression by an attacking enemy, war might be justified.

We have not faced anything close to such justifiable aggression since WWII.

In the case of our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, we are the aggressors. (The men who destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon were stateless thugs and not an army from or representatives of Afghanistan.)

Maguro said...

A canard. Japan was essentially already defeated and was reportedly ready to surrender. We dropped the bombs to provide an example to the Russians of our might rather than to defeat an already defeated enemy.

Talk about a canard. The Japanese Imperial cabinet was deadlocked 3-3 on whether to continue the war after the Hiroshima bomb had been dropped and they'd assessed the damage. The Empperor, of course, broke the tie in favor of surrender. The notion that the cabinet would've surrendered if we'd just asked them nicely is pure leftist revisionism.

virgil xenophon said...

Cook, your revisionist history is just as false as Michelle's "new" bangs. If you were a true student of history you would know better than to regurgitate and/or parrot the canards of leftist historians. Don't be sophomoric--you embarrass yourself.

Colonel Angus said...

A canard. Japan was essentially already defeated and was reportedly ready to surrender. We dropped the bombs to provide an example to the Russians of our might rather than to defeat an already defeated enemy.

Yes, they were so ready to surrender they ignored the demand made at the Potsdam Conference. It took a second bomb.

Actually they weren't essentially defeated either. They had almost a million troops in Japan while much of Asia was still under occupation.

Japan had numerous opportunties to surrender, particularly after Iwo Jima and Okinawa but they didn't. You might think they were defeated but they didnt.

Shouting Thomas said...

You guys have lost any semblance of a relationship to the subject at hand.

We're not re-litigating WWII.

bagoh20 said...

Hold on Thomas, We'll be getting to Vietnam and "Genghis Khan" soon.

Baron Zemo said...

That's right.

We are Obama bashing and smacking the lying liberal hypocrites around with an assist from our leftfielder Robert Cook!

Sharpen up losers.

bagoh20 said...

BTW, Kerry served there, and saw Genghis Khan.

Colonel Angus said...

True Thomas. If the defeat of Imperial Japan is a war crime to Mr. Cook, there is no point discussing more contemporary matters since its a forgone conclusion the United States is the bad guy.

Maguro said...

Hey bagoh, that's pronounced "Jenjis Khan". Just sayin'.

Revenant said...

Go away, John.

Hagar said...

Curtis LeMay - not a leftist historian - said that if the war had gone the other way, he and Norstad would have been prosecuted as war criminals.

Sometimes quoted as if he said this during the war, but the language is more from the early -fifties.

True enough, it is the generals on the losing side that get prosecuted.

edutcher said...

Robert Cook said...

It was to the US troops who were facing the prospect of invading Japan.

A canard. Japan was essentially already defeated and was reportedly ready to surrender.


I says again and I repeats, "Hell To Pay".

Open up your mind for a change.

bagoh20 said...

What good is a pacifist? Even if they are right, you can just ignore them.

Maguro said...

Curtis LeMay - not a leftist historian - said that if the war had gone the other way, he and Norstad would have been prosecuted as war criminals.

Sometimes quoted as if he said this during the war, but the language is more from the early -fifties.

True enough, it is the generals on the losing side that get prosecuted.


Yes, LeMay absolutely would have been strung up if the other guys had won. Very honest of him to admit it publicly.

And while it's true that the US bombing campaign against Japan was monstrous both in conception and in execution, monstrous acts were required to win the war. Playing by civilized rules would've meant losing or fighting an endless stalemate in the Pscific, neither of which were acceptable options.

Hagar said...

I do not think LeMay was "admitting" to anything. He was a warrior and just trying to get it through people's heads that war is indeed "hell."
A serious wae results in the breakdown of all law and order. It is just a question of who will survive, so don't start one unless you are quite sure you will be the one left standing.

Pertinent to the start of this thread, is that Japan - and Germany - was in no position to retaliate against our terror bombing, while the various Islamist factions and organizations we are facing in this war are quite able to reply in kind as far as individual torture and assassinations go.

Seeing Red said...

How many countries have actually dropped leaflets 7 days before saying get the hell out, your city is a target? Tell your friends & relatives to leave!





















Dante said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ralph L said...

Delete the "mildly" and I'll go for 3.
Once a traitor, always a traitor.

Robert Cook said...

"If the defeat of Imperial Japan is a war crime to Mr. Cook...."

Are you being purposely dishonest or do you have serious reading comprehension skills? I never said defeating Japan was a war crime; I said dropping atom bombs on two civilian cities were unjustified and were, therefore, war crimes.

Robert Cook said...

"Pertinent to the start of this thread, is that Japan - and Germany - was in no position to retaliate against our terror bombing, while the various Islamist factions and organizations we are facing in this war are quite able to reply in kind as far as individual torture and assassinations go."

What do you mean here?

Do you mean to suggest that the scattered Islamist terrorists are a greater threat to us than were Germany and Japan,(or even as great a threat)?

Hagar said...

Neither. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and Hitler followed suit and declared war on us too.
(Though our reason for giving priority to the European war was to prevent the Soviet Union from in fact becoming "Eurasia.")

I am saying that the 20th Air Corps could firebomb Japan and Hamburg without fear of retaliation in kind on the American homeland. That is not true for drone assassination attacks nor for torturing individuals of the opposing force caught in the open around the world.

Baron Zemo said...

The fact remains that the bombing of Germany and Japan happened in a declared war with the support of Congress and the American people. With congressional oversight and the press taking their role of questioning the necessity of those actions. Even in those days some people did not agree and asked questions.

Obama's drone policy?

Crickets.

Bob said...

Why is dropping the bomb on either Japanese city a war crime? Both were legitimate targets? We killed more in firebombings of Tokyo. The Japanese had dispersed their inductry into neighborhoods. You would have preferred US to force a surrender by invasion? You're complaint is against the Japanese government; especially after Hiroshima. And they had a coup the day before their announcement of surrender.

Bob said...

Why is dropping the bomb on either Japanese city a war crime? Both were legitimate targets? We killed more in firebombings of Tokyo. The Japanese had dispersed their inductry into neighborhoods. You would have preferred US to force a surrender by invasion? You're complaint is against the Japanese government; especially after Hiroshima. And they had a coup the day before their announcement of surrender.

Marshal said...

Robert Cook said...
"It was to the US troops who were facing the prospect of invading Japan."

A canard. Japan was essentially already defeated and was reportedly ready to surrender. We dropped the bombs to provide an example to the Russians of our might rather than to defeat an already defeated enemy.


Even though we realize leftists are poseurs living in a fantasy world every once in a while they can still surprise you.

ken in sc said...

I am here because of the atom bombing of Japan. My father was to be a Higgins boat pilot in the invasion.

Rusty said...

A canard. Japan was essentially already defeated and was reportedly ready to surrender.

In July of 1945. On the island of Kyushu alone there 790,000 home army troops at the ready for an invasion. They would face 550,000 Allied invasion forces. This does not include the civilian militia of at least another 750,000.
The Japanese also had 2000 aircraft allocated to the Kyushu front. The planes and pilots mostly taken from Manchuria.

from captured Japanese dociments.



Bob.
When are going to bring your A game?

Dante said...

But let me ask you something. If we went to war with lets say I don't know Egypt. Or better yet Saudi Arabia. They send over terrorists and kill a bunch of Americans and attack us in every way possible.

Would we drop the big one on them?

Do you think we should?


This is what I think we should do. Prevention. The very simple answer is to develop our oil reserves here in the US. With recoverable reserves in excess of 5 times that of Saudi Arabia, we ought to get going. Then, when the Middle east goes up in flames, no problemo.

Baron Zemo said...

I agree with that.

Lets frack the shit out of our oil supply and let them stew in their own camel juice.

Tom Watson said...

You could not create a system with a poll tax or where only certain voters were counted. And you can't create a system where, in effect, some people's votes count more than others. Matawan income tax preparation services