KUDOS to Governor Patterson of New York for more or less calling Obama and Holder an A$$ for allowing these dangerous people to brought into his state for a trial they are not entitled to and endangering all New Yorkers. Despite what Mayor Mikey (I want to buy the city) Bloombust has said.

He knows he is in trouble for re election. Standing up to the administration (not Obama because he is not really who is in charge, but I digress) that threw him overboard because they thought he would hurt them in Congress is a good way to show people that he is not their guy. Even if this is totally poltical it is still fantastic.

Guess what Bamster and friends. National Security is a BIG DEAL! Gov. Patterson is finally standing up for New Yorkers at least in some capacity.

I don’t think there’s anything despicable about putting the lives of Americans ahead of the life of a terrorist.

I was simply trying to make a point with Mr. Ambrosia. I am well aware that there are interrogation tactics that can be used to extract the info we want. But if the choice were torture versus dead Americans, then I would say do whatever it takes to save those lives.

Also, taking you at your word, if we have laws on the books they certainly should be followed.

I call him an unperson because LEGALLY, that is exactly what he used to be. Until GWB decided to leave him alive while unelected lawyers in funny clothes ordered and trasnferred my rights onto this unperson and the executive branch instead of telling them NO and moving on listened.

This previosly defined legally unperson is NOT an American citizen, naturalized or otherwise. Constitutional rights as what they used to be defined as are NOT for non Americans. At least that used to be the case.

This unperson was also until recently not entitled to the rights of the Geneva convetnion. He did not serve under the color of authority for any nations military, and therefore is and was NOT a POW of any kind.

He has also been disavowed by whatever country of origin he came from (I believe he is Saudi)which means any treaty we have with that country is null and void. As an example, if he is Iranian for example, then we have no treaty to determine how their foreign nationals would be treated if captured committing a crime against the United States.

The reality is, KSM after capture should have been kept where he was. Treated as the US military saw fit, and after all intel had been gathered from him, executed accordingly.

Instead, he was permitted to live. And he was allowed lawyers (by the way those lawyers are guilty of treason by the definition of the statute because they are providing aid and comfort to the enemy), and his position was then illegally brought to civilian courts who had no jurisdiction.

GWB and his foolish policies have of course led to BHO and his policies. Granting rights on this person with the chance of his being set free by these same courts is only the next logical step to the enemy within that wants our destruction.

And I will make a small not so difficult prediction. KSM will draw a liberal judge, who in the interests of fairness and the rule of laws that do not apply will decide that the confession is out as well as any evidence gathered from it (good old exclusionary rule) and with any evidence excluded and witnesses being unavailable because they are currently in combat, all charges will be dismissed.

This is a thoughtful and well reasoned argument.

I agree that it is a false choice to say that torture is necessary to protect American interests. I have always been uncomfortable with that position and have hedged my comments on the issue.

However, I agree with Mike P. (and you) that waterboarding was not torture. There is no evidence that Americans engaged in “torture” on the terrorist savages in American custody.

I also agree that torture is not part of the conservative ideology but rather of the communist/socialist/fascist ideology. Good catch on that one.

I disagree with your attacks on Mike P. though. He is a conservative (even if woefully misguided sometimes – j/t MP!) – and he is certainly not a despicable person. You may rightly disagree with him at times – but that does not make him a despicable person. Both of you are solid conservatives who have your disagreements – but I am confident that there is room enough for both of you in the Conservative tent even with your disagreements.

“That’s one of the differences between our ideologies. I think torture is wrong, you don’t.
It must be a conservative thing.”

I oppose such generalisations, which are offensive to me. A justification for torture is NOT a conservative ideology, it’s a communist ideology. As a conservative, I oppose torture. And the fact that Proto endorsed torture proves that not only is he a fake conservative, but also that – as I said previously – he’s a despicable person.

No one should EVER be tortured – not even savages like terrorists.

Proto rightly wrote that waterboarding is not torture and that the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to irregular combatants – but the GC is NOT the only anti-torture law that America has signed. The US government has also produced anti-torture federal statutes (which apply to everyone present on US soil) and the 1988 Convention Against Torture (ratified by the Senate in 1994 and implemented by a federal statute later that same year). In 2005, the Congress approved, and President Bush signed, a statute that specifically prohibited any agents of the US government to torture any detainees (even illegal combatants).
These laws make it illegal for any American to torture anyone inside the US or outside the US.

Proto also used a utterly discredited, but nevertheless popular (with neocons) tactic: claiming that torture is “necessary” to obtain crucial intel info to protect the US. Protecting the US against all enemies – foreign and domestic – is the #1 duty of the US government. By claiming that torture is necessary, Proto elevated torture to the rank of virtue and forced Americans to choose: either moral principles or a safe America.

That is a false choice, and must be rejected. Torture is NOT necessary to protect the US.

The US government has invented many non-torture interrogation techniques that are remarkably effective. The director of the US Army Baghdad prison said that the techniques described by the US Army Interrog. Manual work and that he doesn’t believe they need to use any interrogation techniques. (The US military had been forbidden to use torture long before the Convention was ratified; and this noble institution has always rigorously complied with that regulation and the Convention.) The US military doesn’t torture anyone, yet it’s able to obtain crucial intel info from the detainees it has. 43 retired generals have urged the Congress to require a SINGLE standard of interrog. for the entire US government.

Moreover, the US government has a huge DHS apparatus to protect the US from terrorists.

“Would you prefer that hundreds or even thousands of Americans die to prove some silly point about not torturing giving us the moral high ground?”

This is a false choice, and this discussion is about any silly point about moral high ground; it’s about whether or not the Executive Branch should comply with a treaty (the Convention Against Torture) and the statutes, nor not. And don’t try to claim that they infringe on the President’s prerogative as CINC; they don’t. The Legislative Branch, NOT the Executive Branch, makes the law.

Dropping the bomb was not torture. One human being was not ripping fingernails out of another. The bomb was needed, and frankly, they didn’t even know if it would work right. Yes, they did a test. But they were still unsure of what and how it would do. If you read any report, the crew of the Enola Gay were awed by the power. They had no idea what would happen. They were not trying to extract, or worse, coerce information out a single human being. Now whether you think this way of thinking is inconsistent with my stand on the death penalty, well, the only thing I can tell you is…so what. Was dropping the bomb moral? I don’t know. I know it was needed…for both sides. Like I said, it saved many more lives than it took…more so on the Japanese side. Maybe in that respect, it was the morally acceptable alternative to an invasion. Maybe that’s the diffence too…torturing one human being does nothing to help their side…only one side is helped. Dropping the bomb saved lives on both sides.

And then I would ask you…when we tortured…did that make us better as human beings? And does it make you feel good when you hear that another human being was tortured? If it does, then there’s no point in me going on about how I feel on this subject. Are they criminals..of course. Should they be put to death…absolutely. Should they be tortured beforehand…absolutely not.

You are correct that all law is ultimately backed by the force of government guns. That is why we rightwingers insist that government action be LIMITED. Otherwise you have a proliferation of force, which ultimately has no other end than dictatorship.

The proper response to the problems you outline is challenging the riduclous notion that the doctrine of “you are your brothers’ keeper” should in any way be enforced by law, not that it appropriate to use force against people who demand to be taken care of.

If you advocated individual responsibility consistently instead of throwing your own hissy fits whenever you have the urge to stomp your feet, you might start working toward creating a better world, for yourself and for everyone else.

The better question to ask him is why is it worse to *pretend* to kill these jihadists that even Mr. Ambrosia concedes are guilty of heinous crimes, than it was to *actually* kill Japanese citizens who were less culpable for the Emeror’s war machine than these enemy combatants are responsoible for the deaths of Americans?

Why is *pretending* to kill through techniques such as waterboarding torture?

Torture is wrong…and as I said before, I would hope we are better than that.
”

Mr. Ambrosia – you still have not answered the question. And I can only conclude from what you have told me that your position is simply inconsistent.

Why was it morally right for use to drop the bombs on Japan in order to win a war and save American lives, but it’s not morally right to torture to in order to win a war (and, yes, this is still a war we are in ) and save American lives?

You rightwingers have an unfortunate tendency to work yourselves into a hissy fit over the silliest nonsense. Are there criminal penalties for violating a law? Of course there are. Just like there are criminal penalties in almost every piece of legislation that’s ever been passed. I’ll bet they even have criminal penalties for Bank CEOs who pay themselves too much salary and bonuses. They even put people in jail who work hard and pay taxes but don’t have the appropriate documentation to prove their immigrant status. They also put cancer patients in jail because they smoke marijuana to help alleviate their pain and suffering.

We already have Medicare and other health taxes to pay for other people’s health care and if we don’t pay, like what happens when we don’t pay any other tax, we go to jail.

Besides, I’m glad they’re starting to go after these deadbeats who can afford insurance but would rather max out on their creditg cards to buy bigger cars, bigger boats, bihher houses, vacation homes, etc. and when they do get sick they either use fraud and deception to obtain insurance to pay for a pre-existing condition or they simply declare bankruptvy so they can stiff their creditors and health care providers. Obviously the cost of paying for all these uninsured deadbeats has to be passed along to the rest of us who do carry insurance in the form of higher premiums and fees.