You still have not answered an earlier question, which is:

Is it acceptable for an American to be waterboarded by an enemy (not necessarily a stateless terrorist) using the U.S. approved technique?

If not, then why not?

Yes, you backtracked.

I said:

Terror attacks and plots have continued around the world since he invaded Iraq.

You replied:

Terror attacks and plots have been FOILED around the world since we invaded Iraq.

If anyone is insinuating anything, it is you, by suggesting that no attacks and no plots have been carried out.

Yes, some may have been foiled, but other plots that led to successful attacks have not.

Our own government has data showing an increase in terrorist attacks worldwide between 2005 and 2006. Specifically, data shows almost 8000 attacks in 2006, and this does NOT include terrorist attacks in Iraq (which bring the total to a bit over 14,000), but I’m sure you’ll pull a Petraeus and not count those. The info is here in the TP archives, but I dare you to find a credible source proving the info wrong.

If terror attacks are on the increase, how is the war on terror “working?”

The “is there any evidence, I don’t know” response is actually the closest anyone has come here after a couple of years to acknowledging this.

Comment by Kilo — November 30, 2007 @ 7:44 pm

Nice job of picking the response and missing the point. I said I would/am outraged when Democrats to it. I have written to my Democratic senators that did not stand against torture (and water boarding). I wrote a harsh letter to Schumer and Feinstein for confirming and therefore condoning Mukasey. So the simple answer is YES I am as outraged NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. I will avoid saying anything else since you seem to take only one sentence of my posts.

Comment by Kilo — November 30, 2007 @ 7:36 pm

Do you also think it’s fantastic that the amendment was voted down?

O. Bigass won’t answer this question, so I put it to you: is it acceptable for a U.S. soldier to be waterboarded should he or she be detained by the enemy?

Comment by Kilo — November 30, 2007 @ 7:36 pm

Well, smart ass, what has the Bush administration offered up to ensure that our troops are not waterboarded should they be detained by our enemies? You know…war crimes prosecutions, and all that.

Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 30, 2007 @ 10:23 am

No, I condemn Romney for not being prepared to answer a question that he should have expected. I expect this from ALL the candidates, Dems and Repubs. All of them are courting MY vote. If Romney wants my vote, he has to convince me he is the best choice. So far he’s f-ked it up as far as I’m concerned. Along with the torture issue, his shit-for-brains statement declaring governors as having more foreign policy experience than senators, his shit-for-brains declaration that his son’s contribution to his presidential campaign is on the same level as U.S. soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq, and the issue regarding Congress and taking action against other countries, which I detail below, he is off to a shitty start.

Now, back to the torture issue. He is obviously avoiding the question and cannot make a commitment. If he believes it is torture, he should say so. But he can’t because CIA officials have admitted to waterboarding detainees, so if he says its torture, then he will have to say that the U.S. tortures people, which is just the opposite of what we hear from the current administration. If he believes it is not torture, then he should say so. If, like you, he believes it is torture only if it causes physical harm, then he should say so. If he doesn’t believe it is torture, he should say so. But no matter his position, he should be able to back it up. But he can’t; it’s just like with running to his lawyers to get their advice on whether or not he has to go to Congress to take military action against another country. This situation is also one in which he should have a clear answer. I’ll give him a hint: hell yes he should go to Congress.

What the hell kind of campaign is he running? Elect me in 2008 and I’ll answer all your questions later? Bullshit.

Your further question is not only baseless, but laughable.

Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 30, 2007 @ 11:18 am

Then why do you post here? You are scared little man, that’s all you are. Scared that “foreigners” are coming to kill you. That makes you a coward, a bigot and a racist. Also irrational. It’s really rather simple, actually, that even you can get it.

Have a nice day in your narrow-minded, fundamentalist 24% existence.

Comment by Kilo — November 29, 2007 @ 5:12 pm

Sen. Kennedy offered an amendment that would allow the U.S. to go after other countries who subjected Americans to waterboarding. The concern was that if we waterboarded (whether it was “torture” or not), other countries would say, hey, we can do it too.

More…

The measure, co-sponsored by Senator Feinstein, requires the State Department to notify other signatories to the Geneva Conventions that if Americans are subjected to extreme measures, such as waterboarding or induced hypothermia, we will take action through war crimes prosecutions or other means.

The amendment was voted down. Way to support the military, guys.

You are a coward, a gutless sad coward. I love living in New York as it’s a city with people from every country in this world. You are a bigot, a racist, and you still never answered my question as to why yopu hate America. Are you secretly in the Taliban, your views are the same?

Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 30, 2007 @ 10:13 am

Your words, Biggie, not mine.

I said that terrorist attacks had continued. You said no. Now you are trying to backtrack. Heh.

So which nations don’t matter?

Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 30, 2007 @ 9:10 am

Your hero Romney is the one who refuses to condemn waterboarding as torture. Perhaps he should hire you as an advisor, because he sure as hell can’t even say “we don’t torture.”

You didn’t answer the question. Plus, I’m not necessarily talking about stateless terrorists.

Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 30, 2007 @ 9:37 am

Bush can kiss my ass.

As for terrorist attacks being foiled, I guess the bombings in London and Spain don’t count, eh?

I’m sure most, if not all, of them would have preferred waterboarding to having their genitals cut off, having their eyes gouged out, or any of the other numerous barbaric physical injuries they suffered prior to death at the hands of the barbarians.

Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 30, 2007 @ 9:30 am

yeah, great argument Bigfoot. So by your silly logic, if I would rather have my genitals cut of than say my legs cut off, then getting my genitals cut off isn’t torture? So only the ONE very worst technique is torture? Just because someone would choose one torture over another does not make the first OK. I don’t know why I am wasted time, but again I will point out that the specific technique of waterboarding is not new and has been considered torture when the Japanese did it, when Pol Pot did it, when the spanish did it, when the Nazis did it, when the Geneva Conventions defined torture; however, with your logic, it is not when the US does it. You make me sick.

Maybe tell us much you’ll be shouting about that when a democrat is in office and there are zero posts about it by liberal blogs ?

Comment by Kilo — November 29, 2007 @ 5:12 pm

Kilo,

Yes, I will shout just as much if a Democrat does it. I have seen no proof of it. Has it happened under Democrats? I don’t know and it is irrelevant, I am against torture, against rendition and I want to see the US become a better country. I know the USA has done some very shameful things in the past – and, unlike you, I don’t defend the actions based on who is in office.

Like many have said before – the “Clinton did it too” argument doesn’t hold for those that actually believe in principles. (but I guess you didn’t know that).

O. Bigfoot,

You are naive or worse, willingly ignorant and shameless. I, as well as many others have posted information from people who really know about torture. People who really know about water boarding, and they say it is torture and that it doesn’t work. You, on the other hand, just continue to defend it. I am curious how you are more qualified than the multitude of people that disagree as well as those that have experienced it?

In addition to the enemies we are creating because of the failed and disgusting policies of the current administration, we are losing our allies. GW and this administration (as well as the complacent democrats), have done great damage to this country. I only hope that we can recover.

That was kind of the whole point of my post.”

Notice the quote I provided:
“House members and senators have ….introducing legislation that would extend a ban on severe interrogation tactics”

No, they haven’t introduced a bill, YET. They are currently working on introducing a bill. That was the whole point of my post.

Gal? Stuff it, I am about as opposed to Hillary Clinton as you are, the only difference is that I oppose her because of her policies on censorship and war, you oppose her because she is female and has the surname “Clinton.”

The guys I want to see are Edwards or Obama. Hillary’s sole appeal is that Republicans don’t like her.

And face it, you don’t give a flipping toss about principles, its guys like you who turned torture into a topic Americans debate. You only give a toss about principles when you can slam someone else with no cost to yourself.

Hence your “Principled” stand on abortion, and your “Principled” stand against providing social healthcare. Your “Principled” stand on torture, which amounts to not even saying “Clinton did it too” but “The Democrats might do it too so therefore its okay.” I mean, it isn’t even a flipping four-year old’s appeal to “He did it too” its a hypothetical “He might do it too – maybe.”

That “He might do it too – maybe” is why liberals are all about voting out the jackasses who are doing it right now and putting the Democrats into power. But, oh, it is so much easier to, like a slimey, spineless wuss of a Republican say “It is like this it will always be like this” then actually change things.

And if the unthinkable happens and the Republicans actually win, I don’t expect to see you criticising them for anything, given your track record of rising to the defence with opposite yet equal “truths” which arne’t always even true. Clinton wasn’t spying on Americans, and he certainly wouldn’t have gotten a free pass if he was, from the same Republican Congress that impeached him for a blow-job.