Waterboard the Underwear Bomber?

[skycop 0]

Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.

Heck of a job, Brownie.

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare."

And produces linguistic -- and logical -- oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Fort Hood, Tex., shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" -- code for daring to associate the mass murder there with Nidal Hasan's Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the would-be bomber acted alone.

More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."


Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist."

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

[email protected]

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.

Heck of a job, Brownie.

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare."

And produces linguistic -- and logical -- oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Fort Hood, Tex., shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" -- code for daring to associate the mass murder there with Nidal Hasan's Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the would-be bomber acted alone.

More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."


Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist."

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

[email protected]

Glad I read your reply before I replied

Nice job. Nothing more to say

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skycop 0]

I don't know why there are lines through the end of that.

It's just my shitty computer skills!

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I don't know why there are lines through the end of that.

It's just my shitty computer skills!

Oh, I thought it was your commentary on that fascist Krauthammer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

>It is split right down the center with 10 votes each . . .

Yep. Ten people blinded by hate vs. ten people who want to get as much information out of the guy as possible. Let's hope the smarter group wins out.

No shit

I hate those who hate the US

Not sure what you're saying here.
Do you want actual information from the guy, or just want to torture him to satisfy your hatred?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,400]

>This dude is an unlawful enemy combatant . . .

So you think we should "pamper" Timothy McVeigh, who actually did kill 168 people? But this guy - this incompetent bumbler who killed no one - should be executed without getting any information from him? If so, I'm glad you're not in charge.

I think we should use the same system for both. Worked for McVeigh - _and_ we caught his accomplice. Odd that you want something else to happen.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

>It is split right down the center with 10 votes each . . .

Yep. Ten people blinded by hate vs. ten people who want to get as much information out of the guy as possible. Let's hope the smarter group wins out.

No shit

I hate those who hate the US

You're an adult, right? Why, then are your *talking* like a 10 y/o??

Tell you what: I do not give a flying sh*t of who hates my country. As long as they're far away, do not have any influence on my mother country - who cares? If they're a threat to my Germany, we have to ward them off. Nowadays, allies are priceless

You sound a bit old-fashioned. Just like a b/w movie

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 2,400]

>will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an
>airliner over Detroit: "The system worked."

Good - because it did work. No one was injured other than the bomber. That's the best possible outcome once there is a bomber on an airplane.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>It is split right down the center with 10 votes each . . .

Yep. Ten people blinded by hate vs. ten people who want to get as much information out of the guy as possible. Let's hope the smarter group wins out.

No shit

I hate those who hate the US

Not sure what you're saying here.
Do you want actual information from the guy, or just want to torture him to satisfy your hatred?

I am agree with Bill that we should stop those who hate the US when they push this waterboarding is torture bull shit. Even Holder agrees it is not (even though he did not want to)

Get the info using now proven technics my man. That is what is it all about. That and saving US lives

You want to see US people die?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

***

Quote

Quote

Quote

>It is split right down the center with 10 votes each . . .

Yep. Ten people blinded by hate vs. ten people who want to get as much information out of the guy as possible. Let's hope the smarter group wins out.

No shit

I hate those who hate the US

You're an adult, right? Why, then are your *talking* like a 10 y/o??

Tell you what: I do not give a flying sh*t of who hates my country. As long as they're far away, do not have any influence on my mother country - who cares? If they're a threat to my Germany, we have to ward them off. Nowadays, allies are priceless

You sound a bit old-fashioned. Just like a b/w movie

Well, if your post is trully not trolling then yes. If a black and white movie (to quote you) is what we need to get back to doing things right. I am all for it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an
>airliner over Detroit: "The system worked."

Good - because it did work. No one was injured other than the bomber. That's the best possible outcome once there is a bomber on an airplane.

In this case "luck" trumping poor performance IS a good thing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Get the info using now proven technics my man. That is what is it all about. That and saving US lives

I agree. We should use the most effective means necessary to get the info.

Quote

You want to see US people die?

No. And I want the terrorists associated with Mr. Underpants rounded up and/or killed. So we should listen to the experts when they tell us which are the most effective means of obtaining accurate information.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/poll-finds-americans-favor-waterboarding-christmas-day-terror-suspect/19299536

Should the underwear bomber be waterboarded to try to get information from him?

why not? Holder said it was not torture!!!

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjAwY2M0ZjljYjAzYzFiYzljZjNkNDY1YTE1YmVhMDU=

The definition of torturre is the infliction of severe physical pain for punishment or coersion. The "terrific questioning" in your link is based around the entirely false strawman idea that torture must involve "permanent harm". That's just not true.

If you think getting someone to momentarily say what you want them to say because you've confused the hell out of them by using definitions of words that just don't exist is a win, then way to go! But I think everyone else can see what's actually going on.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Get the info using now proven technics my man. That is what is it all about. That and saving US lives

I agree. We should use the most effective means necessary to get the info.

Quote

You want to see US people die?

No. And I want the terrorists associated with Mr. Underpants rounded up and/or killed. So we should listen to the experts when they tell us which are the most effective means of obtaining accurate information.

And we know today that the most info that was gained was gained through one of the best technics. Waterboarding

It has saved more lives (known via reports) than anything else we have heard of. I wonder how many lives it has saved that we do not yet know of.

Remember, the AQ manual says one of the main things to do is to say they were tortured.

I hope Obama changes his mind. My guess? He has already. I just wonder when it will come out

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/poll-finds-americans-favor-waterboarding-christmas-day-terror-suspect/19299536

Should the underwear bomber be waterboarded to try to get information from him?

why not? Holder said it was not torture!!!

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjAwY2M0ZjljYjAzYzFiYzljZjNkNDY1YTE1YmVhMDU=

The definition of torturre is the infliction of severe physical pain for punishment or coersion. The "terrific questioning" in your link is based around the entirely false strawman idea that torture must involve "permanent harm". That's just not true.

If you think getting someone to momentarily say what you want them to say because you've confused the hell out of them by using definitions of words that just don't exist is a win, then way to go! But I think everyone else can see what's actually going on.

Eric does not agree with you.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....

You sound a bit old-fashioned. Just like a b/w movie

Well, if your post is trully not trolling then yes. If a black and white movie (to quote you) is what we need to get back to doing things right. I am all for it

*Trully* sounds funny ...

Marc, I'm here here since years. And truly not trolling at all. You should know.

Going back to black/white does not sound that progressive at all.

You have to take care - forward-looking parties could outstrip you quicker than you ever would expect

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

....

You sound a bit old-fashioned. Just like a b/w movie

Well, if your post is trully not trolling then yes. If a black and white movie (to quote you) is what we need to get back to doing things right. I am all for it

*Trully* sounds funny ...

Marc, I'm here here since years. And truly not trolling at all. You should know.

Going back to black/white does not sound that progressive at all.

You have to take care - forward-looking parties could outstrip you quicker than you ever would expect

then you should know by my posts that I think "progressive" is going backwards. At least as definded here in the US.

Progressive = socialism = (todays) democrates

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Eric does not agree with you.

Uh, yeah, he does. That's why he says that waterboarding is torture.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Eric does not agree with you.

Uh, yeah, he does. That's why he says that waterboarding is torture.

Based on intent.

Sucks to be a liberal supporting your position now dosent it. Unless you think our own armed forces have bad intent

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Eric does not agree with you.

Uh, yeah, he does. That's why he says that waterboarding is torture.

Based on intent.

Yes. Which is why he agrees with me.

Quote

Sucks to be a liberal supporting your position now dosent it. Unless you think our own armed forces have bad intent

It's not about 'good' or 'bad' intent. We're not talking about school children here. Once again, the definition of torture is inflicting extreme pain for punishment or coercion. When we waterboard suspected terrorists and insurgents we are inflicting extreme pain for the purpose of coercing information.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[skycop 0]

So you think we should "pamper" Timothy McVeigh, who actually did kill 168 people?

Quote

I wouldn't call executing him pampering......
Tim McVeigh was an American citizen and we weren't at war.


should be executed without getting any information from him?

Read my post, I said exploit intelligence BEFORE any potential execution.

I think we should use the same system for both.***

No way, military tribunals for a non citizen who attempts to attack America. The same happened to three (I think) German spies in WWII, there is no difference. This is a war and the gloves come off.

Good - because it did work. No one was injured other than the bomber. That's the best possible outcome once there is a bomber on an airplane***

You're kidding right, the only reason the "system" worked is because the device did not function as designed. You are a smart guy, and you call that logic? The guy never should have made it on the plane. A cash ticket, no checked baggage, and no jacket for a trip from Amsterdam to Detriot in the winter. The system is ineffective.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Eric does not agree with you.

Uh, yeah, he does. That's why he says that waterboarding is torture.

Based on intent.

Yes. Which is why he agrees with me.

Quote

Sucks to be a liberal supporting your position now dosent it. Unless you think our own armed forces have bad intent

It's not about 'good' or 'bad' intent. We're not talking about school children here. Once again, the definition of torture is inflicting extreme pain for punishment or coercion. When we waterboard suspected terrorists and insurgents we are inflicting extreme pain for the purpose of coercing information.

Ah, acording to Holder, you are wrong

And in Holder and Obama's case, we may be speaking to school children. At least when it comes to intent

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skycop 0]

Oh, I thought it was your commentary on that fascist Krauthammer.***


What a surprise, calling someone who disagrees with you a name. Nice point for such an edumacated guy!

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[1969912 0]

Quote

Oh, I thought it was your commentary on that fascist Krauthammer.***


What a surprise, calling someone who disagrees with you a name. Nice point for such an edumacated guy!

Think of him as the "literate Lucky"

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Ah, acording to Holder, you are wrong

No.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?