Comments
1 - 20 of 48 Comments Last updated Feb 15, 2013
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Is there a Liberal willing or able to defend the hypocrisy of defending drone attacks while deploring waterboarding and other non-lethal enhanced interrogation techniques?

(For the record, I support both.)
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 12, 2013
 
The Duke loves both methods. Killing American citizens with drone strikes is unconstitutional and must be stopped. Without due process this is a clear violation.
That being said, it would be a lot better to sweep these enemies off the streets and put them in Gitmo to rot for the rest of their lives.
Sneakers

Hatfield, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 12, 2013
 
Jersey Duke wrote:
The Duke loves both methods. Killing American citizens with drone strikes is unconstitutional and must be stopped. Without due process this is a clear violation.
That being said, it would be a lot better to sweep these enemies off the streets and put them in Gitmo to rot for the rest of their lives.
All the government has to do is get a judge to take away their citizenship first, and how do you know they haven't done that in each drone strike.

TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER III--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
Part III--Loss of Nationality

Sec. 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts—

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof.

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States.

(4)(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof,..... for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required.

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Inquiring Mind wrote:
Is there a Liberal willing or able to defend the hypocrisy of defending drone attacks while deploring waterboarding and other non-lethal enhanced interrogation techniques?
(For the record, I support both.)
two different animals with two different outcomes and purposes.

waterboarding is against the Geneva conventions that the US agreed to.
waterboarding is not effective ask the interrogators who do that job for a living.

as good ole Jessie Ventura said "“I’ll bet [Hannity] a thousand bucks that I can get him to say ‘Barack Obama is the greatest president.’ If I get him to say it, he’ll give the thousand to charity and if I can’t, I’ll give the money to charity.”

hannity of course turned tail and ran.
guess he was afraid of getting a "dunking".

drone strikes are remote killing.

the same could be done with a dumb iron bomb.
using drones reduces collateral damage.
that is killing innocents around the target.

military targets are legitimate targets that accomplish the aim of destroying the enemy.

as to targeting US citizens who are working as terrorists and who have stated they want to commit harm to the US,
do you really defend their due process claims?

drone strikes reduce exposure to special warfare units (soldier causalities).
why risk our people to kill an enemy in a remote location?

American citizens traveled to Germany and fought in the German Army against US forces in WWII,did they require due process when their units were targeted by the US Army Air Corps?

the big question is determining what reasons justify US citizens being treated as enemy combatants.
one argument is if those people are not directly harming US citizens their due process rights should be observed.
if that is the case then the "Bush doctrine" should be invalid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

"The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. "

"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense"

again the problem is determining who is on the strike list.
that would be the President of the US.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Feb 12, 2013
 
that would be the President of the US would determine who is on the strike list.

my bad
Nope

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 12, 2013
 
Inquiring Mind wrote:
Is there a Liberal willing or able to defend the hypocrisy of defending drone attacks while deploring waterboarding and other non-lethal enhanced interrogation techniques?
(For the record, I support both.)
In answer to your question, look at dumbar's answer.

I'm sure Joe will chime in on this. Anything the Anointed One does is okay by him!

Liberal Hypocrisy 101.
Nope

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 12, 2013
 
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
two different animals with two different outcomes and purposes.
waterboarding is against the Geneva conventions that the US agreed to.
waterboarding is not effective ask the interrogators who do that job for a living.
as good ole Jessie Ventura said "“I’ll bet [Hannity] a thousand bucks that I can get him to say ‘Barack Obama is the greatest president.’ If I get him to say it, he’ll give the thousand to charity and if I can’t, I’ll give the money to charity.”
hannity of course turned tail and ran.
guess he was afraid of getting a "dunking".
drone strikes are remote killing.
the same could be done with a dumb iron bomb.
using drones reduces collateral damage.
that is killing innocents around the target.
military targets are legitimate targets that accomplish the aim of destroying the enemy.
as to targeting US citizens who are working as terrorists and who have stated they want to commit harm to the US,
do you really defend their due process claims?
drone strikes reduce exposure to special warfare units (soldier causalities).
why risk our people to kill an enemy in a remote location?
American citizens traveled to Germany and fought in the German Army against US forces in WWII,did they require due process when their units were targeted by the US Army Air Corps?
the big question is determining what reasons justify US citizens being treated as enemy combatants.
one argument is if those people are not directly harming US citizens their due process rights should be observed.
if that is the case then the "Bush doctrine" should be invalid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
"The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. "
"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense"
again the problem is determining who is on the strike list.
that would be the President of the US.
Waterboarding is against GCIII, only if there are two or more "high contracting parties." Al Queda is not a formal group, therefore the GC does not apply to these terrorists.

If it did, don't you think the UN and the rest of the world would have placed sanctions on us by now? Gitmo is still open, you know.

(Another broken promise of the Anointed One)
dbar

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nope wrote:
<quoted text>
Waterboarding is against GCIII, only if there are two or more "high contracting parties." Al Queda is not a formal group, therefore the GC does not apply to these terrorists.
If it did, don't you think the UN and the rest of the world would have placed sanctions on us by now? Gitmo is still open, you know.
(Another broken promise of the Anointed One)
no we have prosecuted people for violating the conventions on waterboarding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

and try

http://pubrecord.org/torture/278/reagans-doj-...

"George W. Bush’s Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near-drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn’t even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.
Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies."

you're not saying the President Reagan was wrong are you?

Gitmo s still open because Congress passed a law keeping it open.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promi...

so you have a 400,000 a day facility vs a super max prison that would cost considerably less.

as to UN sanctions the US has veto power over such acts and would use such veto.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Nope wrote:
<quoted text>In answer to your question, look at dumbar's answer.
I'm sure Joe will chime in on this. Anything the Anointed One does is okay by him!
Liberal Hypocrisy 101.
what hypocrisy?

waterboarding and drone strikes are two different things.
QuiteCrazy

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 12, 2013
 
It may sound crude, raw, barbaric, even uncivilized but when we are talking about terrorists, religious fanatics I see no choice but waterboarding. They've been brainwashed. How else are you going to get information out of them?
I don't know but has anyone extracted, voluntarily or not, from any of the guys from the super max??
Ramzi Yousef, though he's not Al Queda, he's an extremist.

So I guess Sodium Pent. doesn't work huh?
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
two different animals with two different outcomes and purposes.
waterboarding is against the Geneva conventions that the US agreed to.
waterboarding is not effective ask the interrogators who do that job for a living.
as good ole Jessie Ventura said "“I’ll bet [Hannity] a thousand bucks that I can get him to say ‘Barack Obama is the greatest president.’ If I get him to say it, he’ll give the thousand to charity and if I can’t, I’ll give the money to charity.”
hannity of course turned tail and ran.
guess he was afraid of getting a "dunking".
drone strikes are remote killing.
the same could be done with a dumb iron bomb.
using drones reduces collateral damage.
that is killing innocents around the target.
military targets are legitimate targets that accomplish the aim of destroying the enemy.
as to targeting US citizens who are working as terrorists and who have stated they want to commit harm to the US,
do you really defend their due process claims?
drone strikes reduce exposure to special warfare units (soldier causalities).
why risk our people to kill an enemy in a remote location?
American citizens traveled to Germany and fought in the German Army against US forces in WWII,did they require due process when their units were targeted by the US Army Air Corps?
the big question is determining what reasons justify US citizens being treated as enemy combatants.
one argument is if those people are not directly harming US citizens their due process rights should be observed.
if that is the case then the "Bush doctrine" should be invalid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
"The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. "
"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense"
again the problem is determining who is on the strike list.
that would be the President of the US.
What BS! If you could ask any of the people killed by drones if they would have rather been waterboarded, what do you think they would say? Like I said, I support the drone policy AND I support enhanced interrogation. But the hypocrisy is indelible no matter how you try to obfuscate with irrelevancies like Sean Hannity and Jesse Ventura for God's sake. You know damn well if this were a President Romney WH, Liberals would be lining up to impeach the "baby killer." Some Dems are now questioning the policy and the media is starting to report it. For me, I'd rather expose the hypocrisy and bring back waterboarding. Nobody can tell me it doesn't work, for every one who says it doesn't, you can find someone who swears it does. But common sense says if it works only once and saves lives, it's worth the effort.

BTW, if Obama can take credit for killing Bin Laden, he can also be labeled one of the greatest child killers of all time. At last count, 94 children have fell victim to drone attacks, or as you may call it, collateral damage. Many of these attacks were not in the war zone of Aghanistan, but covert intrusions by the CIA into sovereign countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Keep up the good work and exterminate the roaches, just don't be a hypocrite about it!
dbar

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
What BS! If you could ask any of the people killed by drones if they would have rather been waterboarded, what do you think they would say? Like I said, I support the drone policy AND I support enhanced interrogation. But the hypocrisy is indelible no matter how you try to obfuscate with irrelevancies like Sean Hannity and Jesse Ventura for God's sake. You know damn well if this were a President Romney WH, Liberals would be lining up to impeach the "baby killer." Some Dems are now questioning the policy and the media is starting to report it. For me, I'd rather expose the hypocrisy and bring back waterboarding. Nobody can tell me it doesn't work, for every one who says it doesn't, you can find someone who swears it does. But common sense says if it works only once and saves lives, it's worth the effort.
BTW, if Obama can take credit for killing Bin Laden, he can also be labeled one of the greatest child killers of all time. At last count, 94 children have fell victim to drone attacks, or as you may call it, collateral damage. Many of these attacks were not in the war zone of Aghanistan, but covert intrusions by the CIA into sovereign countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Keep up the good work and exterminate the roaches, just don't be a hypocrite about it!
and the children killed by drone strikes were not on purpose.
waterboarding is on purpose.
the two are quite different.

innocents do get killed in war.
any US military officer who deliberately targets children should be charged with war crimes.
if Hamas launches rockets from a school yard does the Israeli forces refuse to strike at them?
not at all, they state that Hamas is at fault from launching from there.
and the Israeli's are correct.
again if you believe in the "Bush doctrine" then President Obama is well within his power to order those attacks.
i have no problem with killing enemies of the US.
i do not think anyone condones killing children on purpose.
so calling President Obama a baby killer or President Bush the same makes no sense.
when you cite a deliberate targeting of children for a drone attack then you have a point.
when President Reagan ordered an airstrike on Qaddafi , a child was killed.
does that make President Reagan a "baby killer".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_Stat...

should he have been impeached?

you claim hypocrisy and talk about killing children so where does the "Gipper" stand?

and remember his justice dept charged people with waterboarding.
so is waterboarding a crime or not?

again waterboarding and drone strikes are two different things.

dbar

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

QuiteCrazy wrote:
It may sound crude, raw, barbaric, even uncivilized but when we are talking about terrorists, religious fanatics I see no choice but waterboarding. They've been brainwashed. How else are you going to get information out of them?
I don't know but has anyone extracted, voluntarily or not, from any of the guys from the super max??
Ramzi Yousef, though he's not Al Queda, he's an extremist.
So I guess Sodium Pent. doesn't work huh?
you also forgot that it is illegal by military regulation and the Geneva accords which the US agreed to.

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Drone attacks and waterboarding are BOTH wrong.
Nope

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 12, 2013
 
WDRussell wrote:
Drone attacks and waterboarding are BOTH wrong.
I'm guessing you want to "talk" to the terrorists, right?
dbar

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Feb 12, 2013
 
try

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us...

"Khan, in his 20s, was an American of Pakistani heritage from North Carolina. His magazine promoted attacks against U.S. targets, even running articles on how to put together explosives. In one issue, Khan wrote that he had moved to Yemen and joined Al Qaeda's fighters, pledging to "wage jihad for the rest of our lives."

that makes an former American citizen a legitimate military target.

and

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/10/obam...

"The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said his members review all drone strikes on a monthly basis, both from the CIA and Pentagon.

"There is plenty of oversight here," said Rep Mike Rogers, R-Mich. "There is not an American list somewhere overseas for targeting, that does not exist."

Other lawmakers seemed leery of the program's current reach even as they lined up against the oversight proposals.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said a Feinstein-backed oversight panel would be "an encroachment on the powers of the president of the United States."

so there is oversight.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
and the children killed by drone strikes were not on purpose.
waterboarding is on purpose.
the two are quite different.
innocents do get killed in war.
any US military officer who deliberately targets children should be charged with war crimes.
if Hamas launches rockets from a school yard does the Israeli forces refuse to strike at them?
not at all, they state that Hamas is at fault from launching from there.
and the Israeli's are correct.
again if you believe in the "Bush doctrine" then President Obama is well within his power to order those attacks.
i have no problem with killing enemies of the US.
i do not think anyone condones killing children on purpose.
so calling President Obama a baby killer or President Bush the same makes no sense.
when you cite a deliberate targeting of children for a drone attack then you have a point.
when President Reagan ordered an airstrike on Qaddafi , a child was killed.
does that make President Reagan a "baby killer".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_Stat...
should he have been impeached?
you claim hypocrisy and talk about killing children so where does the "Gipper" stand?
and remember his justice dept charged people with waterboarding.
so is waterboarding a crime or not?
again waterboarding and drone strikes are two different things.
"Ooops...sorry kid. You got in the way." Would that work for you as a parent? War? I didn't know we declared war on Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Might be news to them also.

Let me be clear - I am not calling Obama a "baby killer." I fully support the drone attacks, covert actions, and full-blown torture for that matter if it saves American lives. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in saying that drone strikes on mere suspects, including American citizens, is somehow on a higher moral plane than waterboarding and other non-lethal interrogation techniques.

Yes, they are different. One kills you and any innocent people around you, the other makes you gag and then we give you a towel to dry off. You can justify either one, but you cannot say that overflying into a sovereign country, with which we are not at war, and killing someone without evidence or trial is an acceptable action permitted under the Geneva convention while waterboarding is somehow uncivilized. It's just an absurd grasp at straws to reconcile that kind of hypocrisy.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 12, 2013
 
WDRussell wrote:
Drone attacks and waterboarding are BOTH wrong.
I don't agree, but thanks for at least being consistent!

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Feb 12, 2013
 
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
you also forgot that it is illegal by military regulation and the Geneva accords which the US agreed to.
dbar honestly man if you were in a ring and the rules were drawn up out and clear but once you enter the ring the other guy does not comply. Are you going to honestly tell me your going to stand there with your arm behind your back and get your tush hacked off so you can later say.. I was right?? Cause he's going to win and at the end of the day, the victors write it as they like it.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Feb 12, 2013
 
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ooops...sorry kid. You got in the way." Would that work for you as a parent? War? I didn't know we declared war on Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Might be news to them also.
Let me be clear - I am not calling Obama a "baby killer." I fully support the drone attacks, covert actions, and full-blown torture for that matter if it saves American lives. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in saying that drone strikes on mere suspects, including American citizens, is somehow on a higher moral plane than waterboarding and other non-lethal interrogation techniques.
Yes, they are different. One kills you and any innocent people around you, the other makes you gag and then we give you a towel to dry off. You can justify either one, but you cannot say that overflying into a sovereign country, with which we are not at war, and killing someone without evidence or trial is an acceptable action permitted under the Geneva convention while waterboarding is somehow uncivilized. It's just an absurd grasp at straws to reconcile that kind of hypocrisy.
when did i ever say drone strikes are moral?
i am making no moral judgement at all.
killing innocents via drone strikes is not moral.
as to striking in foreign countries well lets say that striking in France say would be a bad idea.
that is because the French could and would retaliate.
that unfortunately is how the world works, it is certainly not moral.

waterboarding however is not moral and illegal under military law and civilian law.
the effectiveness of waterboarding has many detractors.
the question is whether it works.
with waterboarding the subject will tell you anything you want to hear.
that is a big problem with torture aside from legal issues.
personally i could care less about the pain suffered by a terrorist.
getting false or invented information from torture accomplishes nothing.

if i get your point you feel that President Obama has the right to order drone strikes yet you try to equate that as being equal to waterboarding terrorists in a moral sense.

if you mean both are not moral i would agree.

you do not mention the "Bush doctrine" which opened the can of worms.
if a terrorist was known to be holed up somewhere and we knew it and President Obama failed to order a drone strike what would be your claim?

bin laden was in Pakistan, should the President have not ordered the strike?
from a legal point of view he attacked a country that we are not at war with.
Course i do not remember declaring war on Grenada either.
or the games played in Nicaragua.
quite a lot of covert action and killing of innocents.
those actions were both immoral.
i do not remember conservatives being outraged about the lack of morality in those two cases.
yet now they do?
why is that?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Coopersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Debate: Ferguson - Quakertown, PA 19 min Wake Up All 70
PA Who do you support for Governor in Pennsylvania... (Oct '10) 1 hr Bill OReilly 51,275
I can't drive…55 11 hr george 7
driveway paving 17 hr robb 7
HD antenna 17 hr Townes 1
In a lot of pain I need help 18 hr cls0707 7
Is Center Valley still living on dial up? Where... 18 hr usafpride5 1

Search the Coopersburg Forum:
•••

Coopersburg News Video

•••
Coopersburg Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Coopersburg Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Coopersburg People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Coopersburg News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Coopersburg
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••