To Save America

[tabs]

This war that has been forced upon America comes at a time when the very values of American Society are being questioned: and in the the face of an implacable enemy bent on the destruction of America it is shamefull that there is so much divisivness in the American body politic..it only empowers our enemies by giving them hope that America doersn't have the will to triumph. Many Americans falsly assume that their lives will not be materially effected by enemy victories. That life as they know it will simply go on. However if this divsivness increases in tempo at what point does the American Government step in to maintain the peace and tranquility of America. To ensure that ideals that Americans cherish so much are maintained. To save America we must do whatever it takes.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by tabs
To ensure that ideals that Americans cherish so much are maintained. To save America we must do whatever it takes.

So you will be shopping at Walmart again?

Gotta read this if you think American life should not or will not ever change.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47358

Stuartj..............classic: Now we are faced with a NEW and Perilious enemy that knows no national boundaries but is guided by a fanatical, extremist religious ideology. And some Muslims too.

[Superman]

Originally posted by tabs
This war that has been forced upon America comes at a time when the very values of American Society are being questioned: and in the the face of an implacable enemy bent on the destruction of America it is shamefull that there is so much divisivness in the American body politic..it only empowers our enemies by giving them hope that America doersn't have the will to triumph. Many Americans falsly assume that their lives will not be materially effected by enemy victories. That life as they know it will simply go on. However if this divsivness increases in tempo at what point does the American Government step in to maintain the peace and tranquility of America. To ensure that ideals that Americans cherish so much are maintained. To save America we must do whatever it takes.

In a word, Tabs, you're hoping for "leadership." Very rare, especially in politics. But I'd agree with you, at least to a point. I am not ready to accept the notion that life as we know it much change. Remember that marine giving the one-finger salute to the terrorists after recovering from a IED blast? And the mouse doing the same to the eagle? I feel that way, and I'd like all America to feel that way. No, I'm not comfortable giving up my freedoms in the name of security. Nope. It doesn't matter if you give it a name like "Patriot Act." You could call it "Mom's Apple Pie" and I'd still regard it as chicken**** behavior on our part, and a partial victory for the bad guys. I disagree with it, and I disagree with the Iraq decision. I think we should be very aggressively pursuing another course of action. And I'd expect my fellow Americans to be brave enough to accept THEIR roles in the battle against terrorism.

And yes, I too am waiting for some leadership in Washington DC. The guy who currently lives in the White House honestly seems to me to have the smallest amount of leadership of any public figure I can recall anywhere. I am embarrassed that his fakey, haughty, arrogant mug is the face of America at this time. I could go on, but I won't. We need leadership and don't have it.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by tabs
To save America we must do whatever it takes.

Saving America by doing "whatever it takes" is decidedly un-American, but you already knew that.

[kach22i]

I'm still waiting for Tabs to do a 180 on this, he can't be serious.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by rrpjr
Unless I am as dense as I may be ignorant, the writer is making a contemporary allusion to a more modern fascism. And the implication remains silly. He would do well to think more seriously about a truer parallel -- between Nazism and radical Islamicism, which dates to Hitler's close relationship with the Mufti. I think this would best serve the words and memory of the Pastor.

That there exist parallels between the German Nazi movement in the 30's and radical Muslims of today does not minimize other parallels closer to home. Some would find a lot in common between the religious zealots in charge of our country and other brands of religious zealots. Some would say they are birds of a feather, more alike than not.

If we would torture in the name of democracy, is it that much of a leap to start cutting off heads to please this same ideal, this same god? Maybe cutting off heads is more humane than torturing someone for 2-3 years before killing them. Read the papers. America is doing that now.

Now that the president of the United States has started claiming that critics of his administration give aid and comfort to the enemy, another shoe has dropped. We are headed down a dark, dark hole if people allow this to continue.

Pastor Niemoeller offers lessons for our society as well as others.

[Racerbvd]

What do you consider torture??

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Racerbvd
What do you consider torture??

Reading every post Mul has ever made.

[john walker's workshop]

so you think the CIA doesn't torture anyone?

[Rodeo]

November 15, 2005

Former detainees accuse troops of torture

By Lolita C. Baldor
Associated Press

Two Iraqi businessmen, who were imprisoned by U.S. forces in Iraq, alleged that American soldiers threw them into a cage of lions in a Baghdad palace as part of a terrifying torture ritual during 2003.

“They took me behind the cage, they were screaming at me, scaring me and beating me a lot,” Thahe Mohammed Sabbar told the Associated Press in an interview Monday. “One of the soldiers would open the door, and two soldiers would push me in. The lions came running toward me and they pulled me out and shut the door. I completely lost consciousness.”

Sitting in a Washington hotel room and speaking through an interpreter, Sabbar described the scene, motioning with his hands to show how he was pushed into the cage, then pulled back out just as the lions advanced.

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Monday he has never heard of lions being used in any detainee operations and it has never come up in any of the more than 400 investigations into detainee abuse allegations conducted by the military over the past three years.

“We take every allegation of detainee abuse seriously,” said Boyce. “But it does seem unusual that this is now coming out for the very first time after three years of investigations.”

Sabbar, 37, and Sherzad Kamal Khalid, 35, are in the United States this week to talk about the lawsuit that the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First have filed on their behalf against Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other military officials.

The suit, filed in March and transferred to federal court in Washington, details sexual abuse, mock executions, water and food deprivation, electric shock and other torture used on eight detainees including Sabbar and Khalid. It does not mention the lion cage allegation.

Khalid said they came to the U.S. to tell the American people “that what happened to us was wrong and the people who are responsible should be held accountable.” He said they named Rumsfeld in the lawsuit because “he is the highest person in the Army.”

Dressed in suits, the two men talked solemnly about the hot July day in 2003 when they were arrested by American troops with guns and armored vehicles. Their voices rose, and their words tumbled out more quickly, as they described being covered with plastic hoods and repeatedly struck by soldiers using the butts of their weapons.

“I was very scared,” said Khalid. “I felt I was going to suffocate. Every time I screamed and pleaded with them, they would hit me.”

They both described standing in front of a lions’ cage, and said they could hear other prisoners screaming as the metal cage door creaked opened and slammed closed.

“They threatened that if I did not confess they would put me in the cage,” said Khalid, adding that the soldiers kept asking him where Saddam was. “I laughed; I thought they were kidding me. They asked where are the weapons of mass destruction. I was very surprised, and I thought it was weird.”

When he laughed, he said, he was beaten more. He said they pushed him into the cage three times, pulling him out as the lions moved toward him.

Both men said they suffer continuing physical and psychological trauma, such as pain, ulcers, nightmares and insomnia, lasting effects of the abuse. Khalid said he was even afraid to be in America now, worried that he could be detained again.

Sabbar was held by U.S. forces about six months, Khalid for about two months. Both spent time in various detention centers around Baghdad and according to their lawsuit, they were both at times under the control of soldiers commanded by Col. Thomas Pappas.

Pappas, who was named in the lawsuit, was commander of the Military Intelligence Brigade assigned to Abu Ghraib prison, and he was held partly responsible for the detainee abuse committed by some soldiers under his command. He was reprimanded, fined and relieved of command.

Khalid and Sabbar’s visit comes as Congress and the Defense Department continue to focus on the detainee abuse scandals. Lawmakers have pushed to ban torture, while the Bush administration has argued to exempt the CIA from such limits. Meanwhile, the Pentagon last week issued a broad new directive mandating that detainees be treated humanely and banning the use of dogs to intimidate suspects.

Defense officials have conducted about 406 criminal investigations into allegations of detainee abuse, including the well-documented photos of torture at Abu Ghraib. To date, commanders have charged 73 soldiers at courts-martial, issued nonjudicial punishments to 77 soldiers and taken 67 other adverse administrative actions. About two-thirds of the criminal investigations are complete, and nearly three-quarters of those found criminal misconduct by soldiers.

Army officials questioned the validity of the accusations about the lions, saying that some reports suggest that at least several of the lions were removed from the presidential compound in Baghdad before July.

Saddam’s eldest son, Odai, who reportedly tortured and murdered at will, kept lions in his compound at the presidential palace, which was taken over by U.S. troops during the war. He was killed in a gun battle with U.S. soldiers in July 2003.

[Racerbvd]

So once again, the liberal and aclu are defending terrorist, putting terrorist over Americans

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Racerbvd
So once again, the liberal and aclu are defending terrorist, putting terrorist over Americans

You're kind of mixed up ... see, they are NOT terrorists, nor were they ever terrorists. They were innocent Iraqis, arrested, tortured, then released. Now, I'm sure many of their innocent cell mates are now terrorists. If the Iraq Army invaded my town, took me captive and tortured me, I'd become a terrorist quicker than you can say "one nation under God." Thank god these people brought suit rather than strapping on an explosive vest and walking into a wedding.

I know it's confusing, but try to follow. If people DON'T have access to the legal system, they take matters into their own hands. When they DO have access, disputes at least have some chance of being resolved peacefully.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Rodeo
I know it's confusing, but try to follow. If people DON'T have access to the legal system, they take matters into their own hands. When they DO have access, disputes at least have some chance of being resolved peacefully.

Good point, this is the "how and why" of just about every organized crime outfit. It's when the official system fails that the free market fills in one way or another. If these business men don't file a claim, will they have no choice left except to collaborate with terrorist?

Are the terrorist really free lance or is there a government or an organized religion officially supporting them with means and ways?

How "fringe" are the terrorist?

The less fringe, the more rights and recognition of validity?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by Racerbvd
So once again, the liberal and aclu are defending terrorist, putting terrorist over Americans

or you could say once again neocons are putting a political agenda over The Constitution and the very foundation of our Country.

torture is for barbarians, end of discussion. when you become what you hate, you have lost the war, no matter how much you may think you have won.

[gaijindabe]

If someone knows something and he is not talking, he is going to get tortured. What that "torture" may be, we will never know. To think this is not going to happen and you are kidding yourself. Command and control issues of officers and soldiers in the field and at fixed locations is a very different set of situations.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by gaijindabe
If someone knows something and he is not talking, he is going to get tortured. What that "torture" may be, we will never know. To think this is not going to happen and you are kidding yourself. Command and control issues of officers and soldiers in the field and at fixed locations is a very different set of situations.

if you think torture works, you are wrong. Experts, both military and intelligence alike, on Fox, CNN, MSNBC ALL say torture does not provide accurate data.

the need to torture is a sub-human, barbaric instinct, nothing more.

[Joe Bob]

Saw the History Channel documentrary on the Knights Templar last night....The 13th Century French King captured all the leaders and tortured them.....80% confessed to what he wanted.

Took them 5-6 months but they sang his tune. The rest simply were burned at the stake. The torturers were limited to NOT drawing blood.....everything else was fair game.

The favorite was broiling the feet.

[aap1966]

2 questions.

1. How do you define torture? Bamboo under the fingernails obviously qualifies, but what about forcing a prisoner to eat pork, or be interrorgated by a woman? Some might see that as worse than physical pain. I doubt that I would be capable of standing at attention for 6 hours, but the average SEAL probably would shrug it off. My point is just because a prisoner says "I was tortured/humiliated/abused" does that mean the treatment was inappropriate?

2. War is messy. You capture an someone who you believe has intimate knowledge of an impending attack. If you think you can prevent a Beslan/Madrid/9-11/London/Bali-1/Bali-2/Jordan type incident by obtaining that knowledge, what do you do?

[911pcars]

".........Command and control issues of officers and soldiers in the field and at fixed locations is a very different set of situations."

Would this situation then be called "morale relativism"?

Some opine that the mere act of being incarcerated on suspicion qualifies one for the title of "terrorist" and thus a justification to wring out the "truth" from that individual by any means authorized. Would any of the military and/or intelligence forces be so wise as to know that 100% of their detainees are terrorists; recent history doesn't back this up. But there are those who don't care about the distinction and that's worrisome.

I'd imagine that planted evidence placed in someone's home and an anonymous phone call to the authorities might result in a visit by the suits, then perhaps some interrogation and even jail time. For all you constitutionalists, how about some torture to reveal the real truth? BTW, try extracting yourself from these circumstances without access to legal support. Just as morality can be relative, so can the side you're on be relative to who's holding that cattle prod close to your family jewels.

Sherwood

[dhoward]

I like stories with lions in them.