PDA

View Full Version : Panetta Admits, Yes, Waterboarding Worked


Pony Boy
02-03-2013, 08:52 AM
Defense Secretary Panetta Admits Information from Waterboarding Led US to Bin Laden

“The real story was that in order to put the puzzle of intelligence together that led us to Bin Laden, there were a lot of pieces out there that were a part of that puzzle. Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used. But the fact is we put together most of that intelligence without having to resort to that.”

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mXyufICYrW8" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/secretary-of-defense-panetta-admits-information-from-waterboarding-led-us-to-bin-laden-video/

peacepipe
02-03-2013, 09:37 AM
Translation: torture wasn't needed & we would've got OBL regardless,do to the fact torture didn't provide the info needed to catch OBL.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/panetta-we-didnt-need-torture-to-get-bin

DenverBrit
02-03-2013, 10:54 AM
Defense Secretary Panetta Admits Information from Waterboarding Led US to Bin Laden

“The real story was that in order to put the puzzle of intelligence together that led us to Bin Laden, there were a lot of pieces out there that were a part of that puzzle. Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used. But the fact is we put together most of that intelligence without having to resort to that.”

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mXyufICYrW8" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/secretary-of-defense-panetta-admits-information-from-waterboarding-led-us-to-bin-laden-video/

LOL

I guess you missed the interview.

That clip was edited just before he said basically ...."we would have got bin laden without the waterboarding."

In other words, it wasn't necessary!!

cutthemdown
02-03-2013, 02:15 PM
Of course it worked. Everyone knew that the notion we got nothing from it was a lie. They had to say that to support it being something the USA would be against moving forward.

Oh we water boarded the guy who gave us the info for Bin laden but thats not when he talked lol. Yeah right. But if they say that then Obama loses a lot of the credit for getting him.

El Guapo
02-03-2013, 02:19 PM
Where's Captain Obvious when you need him, of course it works.

Pony Boy
02-03-2013, 06:31 PM
LOL

I guess you missed the interview.

That clip was edited just before he said basically ...."we would have got bin laden without the waterboarding."

In other words, it wasn't necessary!!

If it wasn't necessary, then why did they do it? You don't waterboad someone unless all else fails and yes it does work.

DenverBrit
02-03-2013, 08:13 PM
If it wasn't necessary, then why did they do it? You don't waterboad someone unless all else fails and yes it does work.

Ask Panetta, it was his comment.

cutthemdown
02-07-2013, 02:54 PM
Saying that the information didn't come from waterboarding has an obvious reason. Who has the most to gain from that lie? Obama. Otherwise it was Bush that got the information that led to Bin laden.

Zero dark 30 had a ton of the people who were in on this stuff leak out info. Face it sometimes waterboarding probably led to some really good information. Other times men can be hard and maybe torture didn't work. Not all men are hard men though, even in a war. Interrogators look for the ones they can break and break them they do.

No one wants to see that stuff but if you think CIA playing all friendly now you are crazy. They probably still waterboard lol.

DenverBrit
02-07-2013, 03:44 PM
A question.

Is there any part of the Constitution that forbids torture?

cutthemdown
02-07-2013, 04:19 PM
The Constitution doesn't apply to non americans. That is why the targetting of Americans by Obama is so controversial.

I'd say you could argue torture takes away your right to pursue happiness for sure. :) Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness pretty much can mean almost anything.

But when you don't follow the laws of the land you lose those protections in a big way.

DenverBrit
02-07-2013, 08:03 PM
The Constitution doesn't apply to non americans. That is why the targetting of Americans by Obama is so controversial.

I'd say you could argue torture takes away your right to pursue happiness for sure. :) Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness pretty much can mean almost anything.

But when you don't follow the laws of the land you lose those protections in a big way.

It applies to all within US borders, everyone is protected by the law.

cutthemdown
02-07-2013, 10:25 PM
It applies to all within US borders, everyone is protected by the law.

Well due process certainly does unless the president says you are a threat to the USA then we seem to take that away nowdays.

Why not just make the point you are trying to get at we are willing to listen.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2013, 07:10 AM
It applies to all within US borders, everyone is protected by the law.

Yeah, there's no precedent for that. Ask FDR.

Rohirrim
02-08-2013, 08:07 AM
I love the modern Right Wing in America. Jesus would approve of war, the Constitution says that corporations are people, torture is okay, and the 2nd amendment means you get to have your own SAM, if you can figure a way to get one. It's like their own little Wonderland.

And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2013, 09:37 AM
I love the modern Right Wing in America. Jesus would approve of war, the Constitution says that corporations are people, torture is okay, and the 2nd amendment means you get to have your own SAM, if you can figure a way to get one. It's like their own little Wonderland.

And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy.

Neat strawman parade you've got going there.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/editorials/reason-to-target-obamas-policy-to-kill-citizens-is-a-breach-of-rights-673567/

I notice you haven't had anything bad to say about our Federal Government's new "Trial by High Level Official" doctrine. But I'm not too worried. As soon as a Republican becomes president, I'm sure you'll start caring again.

cutthemdown
02-08-2013, 02:57 PM
I love the modern Right Wing in America. Jesus would approve of war, the Constitution says that corporations are people, torture is okay, and the 2nd amendment means you get to have your own SAM, if you can figure a way to get one. It's like their own little Wonderland.

And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy.

BS no one says we should own machine guns or missiles. We say we should be able to own semi automatic sporting rifles, handguns, shotguns.

You are against torture but have no problem Obama putting Americans on a kill list?

“If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.”
― Joseph Sobran

Rohirrim
02-08-2013, 03:32 PM
BS no one says we should own machine guns or missiles. We say we should be able to own semi automatic sporting rifles, handguns, shotguns.

You are against torture but have no problem Obama putting Americans on a kill list?

“If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.”
― Joseph Sobran

You want to be a Constitutional originalist, right? Well, they were talking about everybody having a musket hanging over their mantle in case the government needed to raise an army. They weren't talking about semi automatic sporting rifles, handguns, shotguns, or anything else. It's like the Bible; People make it say whatever they want it to say. Same with torture. Cheney says its okay and the Right gets right in line behind him.

DenverBrit
02-08-2013, 04:25 PM
Well due process certainly does unless the president says you are a threat to the USA then we seem to take that away nowdays.

Why not just make the point you are trying to get at we are willing to listen.

My point? It was a question.

Is there any part of the Constitution that forbids torture?

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2013, 04:46 PM
You want to be a Constitutional originalist, right? Well, they were talking about everybody having a musket hanging over their mantle in case the government needed to raise an army. They weren't talking about semi automatic sporting rifles, handguns, shotguns, or anything else. It's like the Bible; People make it say whatever they want it to say. Same with torture. Cheney says its okay and the Right gets right in line behind him.

Should police be limited to muskets as well? If not, why not?

mhgaffney
02-08-2013, 05:13 PM
As Jesse Ventura famously said:

"Give me Dick Cheney and a waterboard...

and within an hour I'll have Cheney confessing to the murder of Sharon Tate..."

cutthemdown
02-08-2013, 10:45 PM
You want to be a Constitutional originalist, right? Well, they were talking about everybody having a musket hanging over their mantle in case the government needed to raise an army. They weren't talking about semi automatic sporting rifles, handguns, shotguns, or anything else. It's like the Bible; People make it say whatever they want it to say. Same with torture. Cheney says its okay and the Right gets right in line behind him.

The meant whatever the sidearms and rifles of the day are. They would probably say we should have whatever guns we want but I am being reasonable and saying we are fine with semi automatic handguns and rifles.

Pony Boy
02-09-2013, 07:13 AM
You want to be a Constitutional originalist, right? Well, they were talking about everybody having a musket hanging over their mantle in case the government needed to raise an army. They weren't talking about semi automatic sporting rifles, handguns, shotguns, or anything else. It's like the Bible; People make it say whatever they want it to say. Same with torture. Cheney says its okay and the Right gets right in line behind him.

Firearms have evolved from flintlocks to automatic weapons and I thought you believed in evolution but I see you're even quoting the Bible now.

nyuk nyuk
02-09-2013, 07:18 AM
Oh come off it. Everyone knows waterboarding only mattered when Bush was in office!

nyuk nyuk
02-09-2013, 07:19 AM
As Jesse Ventura famously said:

"Give me Dick Cheney and a waterboard...

and within an hour I'll have Cheney confessing to the murder of Sharon Tate..."

We've already had examples of this, such as at Nuremberg and related post WWII trials.

Pony Boy
02-09-2013, 07:19 AM
Obama on Waterboarding

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8TaDrHHNXzI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

nyuk nyuk
02-09-2013, 07:22 AM
I love the modern Right Wing in America. Jesus would approve of war, the Constitution says that corporations are people, torture is okay, and the 2nd amendment means you get to have your own SAM, if you can figure a way to get one. It's like their own little Wonderland.

And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy.

What does this have to do with Panetta's admission besides nothing?

DenverBrit
02-09-2013, 08:50 AM
Yeah, there's no precedent for that. Ask FDR.

I can't, he's gone and I am assuming you're referring to the interment of Japanese citizens. A xenophobic, if not racist, response to Pearl Harbor.

Back to my question:

Does the Constitution forbid torture?

Rohirrim
02-09-2013, 09:12 AM
My point? It was a question.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 8th amendment.

"...waterboarding, ...is a mock execution and thus an exquisite form of torture. As such, they are prohibited by American laws and values, and I oppose them."
John McCain

DenverBrit
02-09-2013, 09:27 AM
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 8th amendment.

"...waterboarding, ...is a mock execution and thus an exquisite form of torture. As such, they are prohibited by American laws and values, and I oppose them."
John McCain

You could add the 5th, too. "the right against self-incrimination" "the right to remain silent."

Might as well throw in the Fourteenth: "due process"

And f*** the Geneva Convention and UN Charter.

Add the Patriot Act and Homeland security and the very rights the 2nd amendment was designed to protect have quickly eroded, but let's just focus on our guns.

It is amazing how the fundamental concepts and intent of the Constitution go out the window when it's convenient, but the 2nd is sacrosanct.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2013, 10:36 AM
I can't, he's gone and I am assuming you're referring to the interment of Japanese citizens. A xenophobic, if not racist, response to Pearl Harbor.

Back to my question:

Does the Constitution forbid torture?

Actually I was referring to his summary execution of German operatives operating and captured on American soil.

Rohirrim
02-09-2013, 10:52 AM
You could add the 5th, too. "the right against self-incrimination" "the right to remain silent."

Might as well throw in the Fourteenth: "due process"

And **** the Geneva Convention and UN Charter.

Add the Patriot Act and Homeland security and the very rights the 2nd amendment was designed to protect have quickly eroded, but let's just focus on our guns.

It is amazing how the fundamental concepts and intent of the Constitution go out the window when it's convenient, but the 2nd is sacrosanct.

And a warped interpretation of the 2nd at that.

cutthemdown
02-09-2013, 11:07 AM
I can't, he's gone and I am assuming you're referring to the interment of Japanese citizens. A xenophobic, if not racist, response to Pearl Harbor.

Back to my question:

Does the Constitution forbid torture?

it depends what your definition of the word torture is!

I love me some Bill Clinton man that dudes answer works for everything.

cutthemdown
02-09-2013, 11:12 AM
I do think torture is covered under the Constitution though. If you torture someone you deprive them of the due process protection you get as an american or guest of our judicial system. I'm just guessing though really. I'm not sure if torture of enemy combatants would fall under the constitution though. We also have the geneva convention which forbids that right?

Waterboarding though IMO does not reach the level of torture IMO. Also mental torture they don't seem to count right? Even our police will **** with your head to try and get you to talk. Denverbrit would you consider depriving someone of darkness, quiet, water, food, and then grilling them for days to be torture?

DenverBrit
02-09-2013, 11:37 AM
Actually I was referring to his summary execution of German operatives operating and captured on American soil.

You mean these?


President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered a special military tribunal consisting of seven generals to try the saboteurs. At the end of July, Dasch was sentenced to 30 years in prison, Burger was sentenced to hard labor for life, and the other six Germans were sentenced to die. The six condemned saboteurs were executed by electric chair in Washington, D.C., on August 8. In 1944, two other German spies were caught after a landing in Maine. No other instances of German sabotage within wartime America has come to light.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/german-saboteurs-executed-in-washington

DenverBrit
02-09-2013, 11:45 AM
I do think torture is covered under the Constitution though. If you torture someone you deprive them of the due process protection you get as an american or guest of our judicial system. I'm just guessing though really. I'm not sure if torture of enemy combatants would fall under the constitution though. We also have the geneva convention which forbids that right?

Waterboarding though IMO does not reach the level of torture IMO. Also mental torture they don't seem to count right? Even our police will **** with your head to try and get you to talk. Denverbrit would you consider depriving someone of darkness, quiet, water, food, and then grilling them for days to be torture?

You are correct about the Constitution....see posts 28 &29 above.

As for a definition of torture, under US law...

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

DenverBrit
02-09-2013, 12:05 PM
And a warped interpretation of the 2nd at that.

And in the meantime, those so-called defenders of liberty were asleep at the wheel. Do they care about the Bill of Rights, or just their ****ing gun collections?

The Patriot Act in a Nutshell
The Associated Press, Knight-Ridder Newspapers

Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks:

Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

Freedom of information: The government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public-records requests. "Sensitive" information has been removed from government Web sites.

Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

Right to legal representation: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. "Enemy combatants" have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.

Pony Boy
02-09-2013, 12:32 PM
You could add the 5th, too. "the right against self-incrimination" "the right to remain silent."

Might as well throw in the Fourteenth: "due process"

And **** the Geneva Convention and UN Charter.

Add the Patriot Act and Homeland security and the very rights the 2nd amendment was designed to protect have quickly eroded, but let's just focus on our guns.

It is amazing how the fundamental concepts and intent of the Constitution go out the window when it's convenient, but the 2nd is sacrosanct.

You’re missing the point here, I think everyone agrees waterboarding is torture and yes it’s very affective.

The question is why did Obama, the Commander in Chief allow waterboading to be used in the search for Bin Laden? The buck stops with him not with Panetta.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2013, 02:31 PM
You mean these?



http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/german-saboteurs-executed-in-washington

That's maybe the PG rated version.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2001/11/18/fdr-s-troublesome-precedent-for-bush-s-terror-courts/

Problems with the case began soon after the saboteurs landed in two groups — one on Long Island in New York and the other at Ponte Vedra in Florida. A member of the Coast Guard came across the New York contingent, but the Germans had taken off by the time he ran back to his station to get help. One of the Germans, George Dasch, went straight to Washington and turned himself and the others in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But when FBI head J. Edgar Hoover announced the arrests, there was no mention of Dasch’s assistance, and the media portrayed the arrests as the result of a daring capture by FBI agents.

Almost immediately, Biddle, the attorney general, sought authorization to try the Germans in a secret proceeding — in part, some historians assert, to avoid having to reveal that Hoover had embellished the story of the capture. Biddle also wanted to secure death sentences for the saboteurs, which would not have been available in civilian courts.

President Roosevelt issued an order authorizing the military commission and closing civilian courts to saboteurs and spies who entered the country on behalf of “any nation at war with the United States.” Bush’s order, by contrast, appears to apply to any noncitizen with terrorist connections, no matter what the country of origin.

The saboteur trial was quickly convened at the Justice Department, presided over by a panel of military officers who were apparently not lawyers. Biddle himself led the prosecution.

Noted lawyer Lloyd Cutler of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering was the youngest member of the prosecution team, and last week recalled moments from the trial. Procedural rules favored the prosecution, Cutler said.

“You didn’t need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt,” Cutler said. Instead, a “reasonable man” standard was used. “It was very different from a civilian trial,” he noted.

As soon as defense lawyer Kenneth Royall indicated he would challenge the constitutionality of the process, Biddle went to Roosevelt. The president reacted angrily, according to a 1996 article in the Journal of Supreme Court History.

“I want one thing clearly understood, Francis,” Roosevelt said, according to Biddle’s memoirs. “I won’t hand them over to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus.” Biddle agreed, telling Roosevelt, “We have to win in the Supreme Court, or there will be a hell of a mess.”

Political Justice at its finest. Anyway, it fully dispensed with the notion that simple exposure to American soil or the US Civil Justice System guaranteed defendants any Constitutional protections.

DenverBrit
02-09-2013, 02:47 PM
You’re missing the point here, I think everyone agrees waterboarding is torture and yes it’s very affective.

The question is why did Obama, the Commander in Chief allow waterboading to be used in the search for Bin Laden? The buck stops with him not with Panetta.

Obama has been allowing a lot of the procedures, introduced by Bush, to continue. Regardless, they are both wrong.

It is one of many occasions when the Constitution/Bill of Rights has been thrown out the window.

Personal freedoms are eroded, yet there is little outrage, but try and reduce the size of a gun magazine and it's: 'The government is treading all over the Constitution and trying to deny us our god given rights.'

Seriously? That ship sailed a long time ago.

The gun lobby is very effective at misdirection.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2013, 02:54 PM
Personal freedoms are eroded, yet there is little outrage, but try and reduce the size of a gun magazine and it's: 'The government is treading all over the Constitution and trying to deny us our god given rights.'

Seriously? That ship sailed a long time ago.

The gun lobby is very effective at misdirection.

I think you forget that the Patriot Act used to be considered a lot bigger deal before it was Obama who started renewing it. 75% of outrage in most of these cases is political. But that doesn't necessarily make the outrage unjustified.

DenverBrit
02-09-2013, 02:55 PM
That's maybe the PG rated version.

Political Justice at its finest. Anyway, it fully dispensed with the notion that simple exposure to American soil or the US Civil Justice System guaranteed defendants any Constitutional protections.

I'm not sure what your point is other than the US Government systematically disregards the Constitution.

My point was that the Constitution was meant to protect all on US soil, not just citizens.

DenverBrit
02-09-2013, 02:58 PM
I think you forget that the Patriot Act used to be considered a lot bigger deal before it was Obama who started renewing it. 75% of outrage in most of these cases is political. But that doesn't necessarily make the outrage unjustified.

The Patriot act has always been a 'big deal,' making it a partisan issue is absurd.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2013, 03:59 PM
I'm not sure what your point is other than the US Government systematically disregards the Constitution.

My point was that the Constitution was meant to protect all on US soil, not just citizens.

Well, it's a nice sentiment. Unfortunately, history has shown that when it comes to war powers, that's not necessarily the consensus.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2013, 04:07 PM
The Patriot act has always been a 'big deal,' making it a partisan issue is absurd.

Heh, yeah, sure thing.

http://www.salon.com/2011/05/23/bipartisanship_8/

But what’s most notable isn’t the vote itself, but the comments made afterward. Sen. Paul announced that he was considering using delaying tactics to hold up passage of the bill in order to extract some reforms (including ones he is co-sponsoring with the Democrats’ Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Leahy, who — despite voicing “concerns” about the bill — voted for cloture). Paul’s announcement of his delaying intentions provoked this fear-mongering, Terrorism-exploiting, bullying threat from the Democrats’ Senate Intelligence Committee Chair, Dianne Feinstein:

“I think it would be a huge mistake,” Feinstein told reporters. “If somebody wants to take on their shoulders not having provisions in place which are necessary to protect the United States at this time, that’s a big, big weight to bear.”

In other words: Paul and the other dissenting Senators better give up their objections and submit to quick Patriot Act passage or else they’ll have blood on their hands from the Terrorist attack they will cause. That, of course, was the classic Bush/Cheney tactic for years to pressure Democrats into supporting every civil-liberties-destroying measure the Bush White House demanded (including, of course, the original Patriot Act itself), and now we have the Democrats — ensconced in power — using it just as brazenly and shamelessly (recall how Bush’s DNI, Michael McConnell, warned Congressional Democrats in 2007 that unless they quickly passed without changes the new FISA bill the Bush White House was demanding, a Terrorist attack would likely occur at the Congress in a matter of “days, not weeks”; McConnell then told The New Yorker: “If we don’t update FISA, the nation is significantly at risk”). Feinstein learned well.

If it walks like a Partisan Issue, quacks like a Partisan Issue...

DenverBrit
02-09-2013, 05:52 PM
Heh, yeah, sure thing.

http://www.salon.com/2011/05/23/bipartisanship_8/



If it walks like a Partisan Issue, quacks like a Partisan Issue...

Like I said, making it a partisan issue is absurd. Both sides are guilty, as I have already stated.

Did you have a different point you were trying to make?

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2013, 09:19 AM
Like I said, making it a partisan issue is absurd. Both sides are guilty, as I have already stated.

Did you have a different point you were trying to make?

Well, you seemed to be asking why more noise is made about the gun issue than other similar threats. I'm pointing out that much of the noise you hear on many issues is political. On either side. Cheerleading, basically.

But there are still principles in there somewhere. Relative noise made by partisans is not an adequate barometer to judge the merit of the principles at stake.

DenverBrit
02-10-2013, 09:45 AM
Well, you seemed to be asking why more noise is made about the gun issue than other similar threats. I'm pointing out that much of the noise you hear on many issues is political. On either side. Cheerleading, basically.

But there are still principles in there somewhere. Relative noise made by partisans is not an adequate barometer to judge the merit of the principles at stake.

Partisan 'noise' often clouds or distorts the truth, one must drill down to find the facts and sources.

Unfortunately, scoring partisan points is too often more important.

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 10:01 AM
A xenophobic, if not racist

Wuh oh

Labels applied. Conversation over.

W*GS
02-10-2013, 10:17 AM
Wuh oh

Labels applied. Conversation over.

Why are you still here, then?

DenverBrit
02-10-2013, 10:42 AM
Wuh oh

Labels applied. Conversation over.

Nice edit, yet that was unfortunately what happened.

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 10:53 AM
Nice edit, yet that was unfortunately what happened.

Not really. It's not at all unheard of throughout history to expel or put in internment a migrant group based on emergency security measures of the present time, especially during war. I don't think simplistic label slapping cuts it.

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 11:18 AM
You know, I recall clearly back in the summer of 2008 a bunch of Obamabots declaring that Obama would bring up Bush on war crimes charges.

I'm still wondering where those folks went.

Oh and Gitmo is still open.

DenverBrit
02-10-2013, 11:22 AM
Not really. It's not at all unheard of throughout history to expel or put in internment a migrant group based on emergency security measures of the present time, especially during war. I don't think simplistic label slapping cuts it.

Really? Then explain why German Americans weren't interned.

cutthemdown
02-10-2013, 12:13 PM
No doubt about it the way we treated japanese Americans was shameful in ww2. I have visited the camp in CA they sent them all to. Very sobering to learn how Americans were deprived of their rights for absolutely no reason.

Japanese were seen as sneaky and German americans were not. Its that simple. It was rooted in racism and one of our darker decisions as a country.

Rohirrim
02-10-2013, 12:26 PM
Once again, we can only look back at history with a cold eye. We don't feel the passions they felt after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The directive addressed two issues, to prevent espionage and to protect persons of Japanese descent from harm at the hands of Americans who had strong anti-Japanese attitudes. Sure it was illegal. So was Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Too bad the world is not perfect. Unfortunately, it's full of crazy apes.

cutthemdown
02-11-2013, 09:23 AM
Once again, we can only look back at history with a cold eye. We don't feel the passions they felt after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The directive addressed two issues, to prevent espionage and to protect persons of Japanese descent from harm at the hands of Americans who had strong anti-Japanese attitudes. Sure it was illegal. So was Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Too bad the world is not perfect. Unfortunately, it's full of crazy apes.

You can understand why something happened and still say it was a dark time and not the right thing to do. FDR is no hero and Lincoln is overated. The movie I mean not the President. :)

cutthemdown
02-11-2013, 09:25 AM
Once again, we can only look back at history with a cold eye. We don't feel the passions they felt after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The directive addressed two issues, to prevent espionage and to protect persons of Japanese descent from harm at the hands of Americans who had strong anti-Japanese attitudes. Sure it was illegal. So was Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Too bad the world is not perfect. Unfortunately, it's full of crazy apes.

We felt like that after the WTC and we refrained from rounding up muslims. They gave us the patriot act and homeland security instead.

Hmmm maybe we should have rounded up muslims.