92 Comments

• 1. LewWaters  |  November 24th, 2007 at 9:50 am

  So, many want the death penalty banned, yet have no problem sentencing the unborn to death before they are even born?

  It’s tragic that the UN wasn’t as concerned with death when thousands were dying in Rwanda and Iraq under previous regimes.

• 2. Eric T  |  November 24th, 2007 at 10:44 am

  I’m against abortion (unless rape or incest) but for the death penalty. In Michigan, the Prisons are the largest expense on the State Budget. I think each inmate cost taxpayers $35,000 a year. What causes crime is unemployment,(that’s why I’m against outsourcing large numbers of jobs) hard drug use, no sense of hope, kids listening to ganster rap music that glamorizes crime and drive by shootings.

  If someone is beyond a doubt guilty of a grizzly brutal crime, why not go back to the Old Testament. (Eye for an Eye) kind of thinking, It sets an example for the many people that don’t want to work and want to enter the prison system for meals and lodging. It says to people in this state, there is REAL penalties for crime.

  I’m sure someone will have some stats saying their is no difference between. Death Penality states. I would think someone would second guess themselves before letting rage and anger push them over the edge. Knowing that the state is looking out for the taxpayers and eliminating scumbags caught raping 8yr old kids then slicing them up. Some people prove themselves unfit to be in our society. Some of these guy’s like Dahlmer or Ed Gein or any similar horrific, murderer. Don’t need a second chance. I hate looking at my paycheck thinking how hard I had to work for the money, Knowing that many people are loafing around on welfare, or sitting back in jail watching T.V. and I gotta pay for them. I do the work, I want to keep my money.

• 3. Bigfoot  |  November 24th, 2007 at 11:26 am

  Although I have no moral qualms about the death penalty, I would probably not miss it if it were discontinued. If I remember correctly, the opinion of Pope John Paul II was that the death penalty could be inflicted in certain extreme cases. I generally find myself agreeing with that view.

  The one misgiving I have is based on a practical matter. Juries are composed of fallible human beings, and are thus capable of being wrong, a possibility that has been decreased by modern forensic technology (such as DNA analysis), but is still present. While the wrongly incarcerated can be released and given some kind of compensation, someone wrongly executed (or aborted) cannot be brought back to life.

• 4. The Decidenator  |  November 24th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

  Thanks. It’s always good to expose hypocrites.

  I’m anxiously awaiting your followup post describing the hypocricy of being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. If you’d like, you could even do a firsthand piece on being anti-abortion and pro-war.

  Love,

  The Decidenator

• 5. Eric T  |  November 24th, 2007 at 12:30 pm

  Bigfoot,

  I hear ya, wrongfully accused, bias Juries, or railroaded to close a case is the big concern.
  But there are those caught red handed with chopped up body parts in the back seat of the car or laying around the house.

  It is probably about 20 degrees up here. I see people living under bridges. I just think it is so much more important that they could have jobs, than sending thousands of jobs overseas, but to make it even worse, flooding our country with illegal immigrants (that may even support Chavez’s vow to crush American Imperialism.)

• 6. Eric T  |  November 24th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

  Deicidinator,

  Here we are, 2 guys that love kids and feel anti abortion but let’s say we are in Pearl Harbor when the Jap planes are unloading bombs killing the guys we worked with on the ships. We still love the kids but got a right to fight back. right. A baby’s life is innocent. A criminal or Invading Army is not innocent. After WW2 my Grandfather felt guilty about shooting very young soldiers(last reserves), so he went to the priest for consel, the priest said ” It my life or yours” in a war situation.

  was the answer ok or weak?

• 7. Mark Noonan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 1:13 pm

  Eric,

  Mr Decide is afflicted with the lack of sense of the left - he’s actually upset that some people are against abortion but also in favor of fighting a war…he does, however, see a difference - the unborn baby is nothing, the terrorist in Anbar is fighting against Chimpy McSmirk BusHitler’s imperialist war for oil/Israel…so, 10,000 abortions aren’t as bad as one dead terrorist.

• 8. Eric T  |  November 24th, 2007 at 1:49 pm

  Libs….
  kill a baby,
  But tax the hell out of everyone to keep a necrophilac, pedophile, cannibal alive for 40 years.

  or
  Lay down their weapons and surrender to avoid spilling blood. But keep the abortion clinics churning out hamburger???

  Libs….

  They don’t make any sense on many of the issues.

• 9. Jeremiah  |  November 24th, 2007 at 2:24 pm

  Decidenator,

  Eric has already provided you with one scenario question, I’ll provide another one…

  How would you feel if someone murdered one of your family members? Let’s say your Mom or Dad, Brother or Sister, or Cousin.

  You know they were innocent…Did your family member deserve to be murdered??

  Little babies are innocent too!!

  Shouldn’t abortion doctors be held accountable for their actions? For Murdering innocent unborn children.

  Shouldn’t the murderer who murdered your innocent family member be held accountable? Instead of living in a state of the art confinement with hot food, television, exercise room, etc,etc.

  A gunman who shoots someone commits Murder!

  A “doctor” who cuts an unborn child up into pieces, or in the case of partial birth punches a needle into a babies little head commits Murder!

  They are Murderers!!!

  If we give a Murderer the Death Penalty, we are not commiting murder!!

  Since God instituted the Death Penalty in the beginning–Genesis 9:6–Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed

  Why are we putting them into prison?

  This country has their thinking all messed up…Why?

  They think it’s “ok” to Murder innocent unborn children, and yet let a gunman who shoots somebody through the head go free…and by free, I mean put them into a confinement compound like I mentioned above, prison!

  That’s why unborn children continue to be murdered, and gunmen, kinfemen, get to continue the rampage in this country!

  The long arm of the law isn’t so long or strong anymore!!

  Wake Up!!

  Jeremiah

• 10. coulterfan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 3:14 pm

  As usual, Jeremiah selectively quotes the Bible to serve his own political purposes. The fact is, the only Pro-Death Penalty passages are from the Old Testament. Jesus himself spoke out AGAINST the death penalty on at least 2 occasions. In contrast, He never spoke about homosexuality nor did He ever speak about abortion (both of these WERE around during His time). Moreover, Jesus spoke of divorce and remarriage as an ‘abomination’ and as adultery. Strange how Republican Christians seem to ‘forget’ this fact with their nominees (most of the front-runners being divorced, while most Dem contenders have never divorced). Strange also that GOP pro-choice (or recently Pro-Choice) candidates are being given a pass, while Dems who are Pro-Choice are branded ‘baby killers’

  Speaking of abortion as murder, Jeremiah. . . What should be the penalty for the mother who chooses to abort her child? If she is guilty of murder, as you allege, what SHOULD be the penalty for murder? I gather that, unlike Christ, you DO support the death penalty. . . so you are prepared to sentence young women who seek out illegal abortions to DEATH?

  Furthermore, if abortion is outlawed we will be headed for the BIGGEST government we’ve ever had! Drinking alcohol or smoking during pregnancy will be subject to criminal charges (providing controlled substances to a minor), as will driving without a seatbelt (child endangerment). If a woman miscarries, it will be investigated as a possible murder, etc, etc. . .

  It SHOULD be surprising how poorly some people think through their beliefs, but I’m used to it where hypocritical Republicans are concerned!

• 11. Eric T  |  November 24th, 2007 at 3:21 pm

  I love this web site, I wanted to share something That I just read about the U.N. on a post by one of the members of our House of Reps.

  We may disagree on abortion or gay marriage, but I hope the whole country can come together on this issue.

  The Liberty Alliance:

  Championing Liberty and Dignity in our Human Community

  U.S. Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter,

  Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee

  New York City, November 18, 2007

  (Given at the Hudson Institute, American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, and the Touro Law Institute Conference on The United Nations: “Hijacking Human Rights)

  In the immediate aftermath of World War II, President Harry Truman confronted two momentous challenges – the commencement of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the struggle to create a Jewish state in Palestine. In his blunt, son of the middle border manner, Truman enunciated the eponymous doctrine he would apply to these and all international challenges during his March 12, 1947, address to a joint session of Congress:

  “I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures… I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way… I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes.

  “One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression. The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedoms…

  “The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died. We must keep that hope alive.

  “The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms. If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world – and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation.”

  Regarding the Soviet Union, in the face of “experts’” arguments Stalin’s imperialist dictatorship should be psychologically “understood” and indulged to purchase an illusory peace, Truman morally comprehended this evil empire’s threat to the United States and the Free World. Through the United Nations, multi-lateral and bi-lateral treaties, his strategy to contain and defeat inhuman communism called for the United States to champion the cause of human liberty and dignity.

  Regarding Israel, again despite “experts’” opinions to the contrary, Truman applied his principled strategy to the cause of Israel. At midnight on May 14, 1948, the Jewish state proclaimed its existence; eleven minutes later, the United States announced its de facto recognition of Israel. Then, on January 25, 1949, the Jewish state held its first democratic election; four days later, the United States announced its de jure recognition of the a democratic Israel.

  Lagging America, on May 11, 1949 the UN admitted Israel. Over time, this act has proven akin to a boa constrictor’s asking a mouse to dance:

  For decades the UN denied Israel admission into a regional group; only in 2000 was Israel conditionally accepted into the Western European and Others Group.

  From 1967 to 1989, the UN General Assembly passed 429 anti-Israeli resolutions; condemned Israel 321 times; and, of 131 UN Security Council resolutions adopted regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, 88 criticized, opposed the actions of, or found against Israel’s interests.

  In 1975, the UN General Assembly approved Resolution 3379 and branded Zionism as racism. It took 15 years for the General Assembly to repeal this abominable slander.

  During the 61st session from 2006-2007, the UN General Assembly passed 22 resolutions against Israel; and the UN Human Rights Council passed 10 resolutions condemning Israel.

  By April of 2007, the new, unimproved UN Human Rights Council had specifically condemned only one country – Israel – while other countries with severe, UN documented human rights abuses, like Sudan, were merely advised of the body’s “deep concern.” And the Council will entertain more resolutions against Israeli.

  Evidently, in the UN’s “diplomatic dance,” the boa constrictor is determined to lead. Let us then, suggest a tune: Bob Dylan’s ironically titled song about Israel, “Neighborhood Bully,” which decries the UN’s bias against and double-standard toward the democratic Jewish state:

  Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim

  That he’ll live by the rules that the world makes for him

  ’Cause there’s a noose at his neck and a gun at his back

  And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.

  On this note, it is revealing how the UN Human Rights Council’s bathetic descent into moral perversity has mirrored the United Nations’ squalid devolution into venality.

  For global altruists afflicted with cognitive dissonance, in a likely futile effort, let us remind them of the UN’s recent, execrable acts against the human liberty and dignity it was founded to defend.

  The UN “humanitarian” aid program, “Oil-for-Food,” provided little bread for Iraqis but large bribes for Hussein, his regime, UN cronies and, likely, terrorists. Estimates are Saddam’s dictatorship siphoned $10 billion from the program through oil smuggling and systematic thievery, and illegal payments and kickbacks from international contractors – all beneath the non-judgmental gaze of UN bureaucrats, who were nevertheless judged culpable for gross incompetence, mismanagement, and, potentially, complicity with Saddam in perpetrating the biggest corruption scandal in human history.

  Secondly, widespread instances and allegations of the sexual exploitation and abuse of Congolese women, girls, and boys were leveled against the UN personnel sent to protect them. The particulars of this barbaric sexual abuse are unfit for this forum.

  Thirdly, the UN’s waste, fraud and malfeasance has turned tawdry graft into a global art, an epic debacle of avarice less worthy of journalist than a satirist. As one UN peace-keeping staffer informed the Inter Press Service News Agency: “Corruption and kickbacks were taken for granted in most overseas operations.” Though not in New York Federal Court, where on June 7th the former top U.N. procurement official, Sanjaya Bahel, was convicted of steering $100 million worth of UN peace-keeping contracts to the family of a personal friend. UN officials refuse to explain how Bahel was twice exonerated by its internal investigations, while a New York jury convicted him of fraud and corruption in half a day.

  These are not the acts of the UN envisioned by President Franklin Roosevelt in his March 1, 1945, Address before Congress on the Yalta Conference:

  “(A common ground for peace) ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these a universal organization in which all peace-loving nations will finally have a chance to join.”

  Weighed against Roosevelt’s words, the UN is deemed wanting, and the reason is revealed: a “universal organization” will include “peace-loving nations” and tyrannical regimes. Consequently, all of the “exclusive alliances,” “spheres of influence,” “balances of power” and “all other expedients” which occurred and failed “for centuries” outside of a “universal organization” have now occurred and failed this century inside the UN.

  Unlike Roosevelt, Truman viewed the UN as a future hope not an immediate panacea. Though personally honest, Truman was versed in Boss Tom Pendergast’s political machine, and so understood the UN’s membership’s math boded ill for free people. Today, according to Freedom House, of 192 UN member states, 89 are “fully free” and 103 are not. Thus, a solid majority (54%) of member states know liberty directly threatens their survival, which requires the suppression of their own peoples and, through their UN membership, the entire human community.

  While it is said words cannot hurt, the majority ruled General Assembly’s resolutions and speeches can and do hurt free peoples, as Claudia Rosett poignantly observers:

  “What may appear to an American audience as irrelevant and even tedious theater is anything but harmless. The speeches on that U.N. stage are not, as a rule, meant for Americans, nor even for the multilateral audience in the chamber. Especially among repressive regimes, they are beamed to home countries and regional neighbors as evidence of the dignity and respect enjoyed by these governments at the world’s leading conclave of nations. They feature as one more blow to the courageous Burmese monks, the hungry North Koreans, the desperate opposition in Zimbabwe, and the democrats who risk prison when they raise their voices in places such as Syria and Iran.”

  This holds true at the UN’s Security Council and its Human Rights Councils, from which a few bitter vignettes paint an abhorrent portrait.

  The UN’s Permanent Security Council includes a nuclear armed communist China and an increasingly authoritarian Russia. Their unsettling synergy of interests and actions on this body ominously echoes the heights of their Cold War co-operation. Consider:

  Despite over a decade of U.S. protestations, communist China and Putin’s Russia are the top exporters of nuclear technology, chemical weapons precursors, and guided missiles to Iran. In 2004, the U.S.-China Security and Review Commission declared “Chinese entities continue to assist Iran with dual-use missile-related items, raw materials and chemical weapons-related production equipment and technology;” and further noted these transfers took place after the communist Chinese government’s 2003 pledge to withhold missile technology from the Iranian regime.

  Looking at the UN Human Rights Council, some members are more suited to a rogues’ gallery than a roster of righteous nations. Soon the UN will enthrone as arbiters of global human rights regimes like communist China, communist Cuba, Putin’s Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Only the UN would put oppressed people’s hopes in such blood stained hands.

  Our association with this insanity exacts a steep price.

  Since 1945, the U.S. has been the UN’s largest annual contributor. In 2006, American taxpayers forked over $423.5 million in dues (or 22% of the UN’s regular budget) and over $5.3 billion in total to the UN. In 2007, Israel, unconditionally and on time, will pay the UN $9 million (or 0.419% of its regular budget); this amount ranks Israel as the UN’s 27th highest dues paying member. In addition, Israel will pay the UN’s separate peacekeeping forces’ budget $35 million. Nevertheless, Israel, the U.S. and all free nations remain the targets of the UN’s member regimes’ internal intrigues and corrupt practices.

  Two statistics define this dysfunction: Only 46% of the UN’s members are free nations; but the UN’s top ten financial contributors are all free nations.

  In a crystalline instant are the UN’s symptoms manifest; its disease diagnosed; and its prognosis shameful: the UN is a global Tammany Hall lethal to the liberty and dignity of our human family.

  In our time, we face challenges equivalent to those posed to President Truman. Once more, the United States, Israel, and the entire Free World face a global, generational War for Freedom against vicious enemies bent upon our destruction. To win, our devotion to liberty must transcend their obsession with death. This cannot be accomplished by fecklessly continuing to rely upon a debauched UN for our collective security.

  Recall Truman: “(I)t must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” So it remains in our global age, wherein a world condensed by an internet cannot endure half-slave and half-free. Our survival at stake, all free nations must prudently diminish their participation in a debased UN; and unite in the cause of human dignity and liberty. Encircled at the UN, we’ve no more time to entreat with wolves in our midst. Best we hold them at bay in their lair, and forge a course for the world’s new birth of freedom.

  Our new course is a Liberty Alliance.

  Similar to the “Community of Democracies,” which could be transformed into this more focused and potent international organization for freedom, the Liberty Alliance must be founded upon the self-evident truth all human beings are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and it must be steeped in the wisdom extending liberty to the enslaved will ensure liberty for ourselves.

  The Liberty Alliance must be composed of free nations dedicated to expanding human liberty to peoples yet free. Member nations must meet a mutually agreed upon criteria of human and civil rights. Observer nations must be domestically expanding their people’s liberty and, upon attaining the agreed upon criteria for membership, shall be admitted to the Alliance. Importantly, member nations which diminish their people’s liberty beyond the agreed upon criteria must be demoted to Observer status and, when necessary, expelled from the Alliance.

  The governing structure of the Liberty Alliance shall be determined by its member nations with the objective being the maximization of transparency, equity, and democracy in accordance with the effective expansion of human liberty and dignity. In accordance with Truman’s doctrine, the Alliance “must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.” Ergo, the Alliance’s emphasis must be upon liberty – wherein human beings individually and communally shape the nature, form, and functions of their representative institutions – not upon abstract notions of uniformity, like “western” democracy or “democratic capitalism” – presumptuous and to often destabilizing impositions upon peoples trying to seize their freedom and shape their destinies as they deem fit. After all, Americans have a President and a Congress, and Israel has a Prime Minister and Knesset; both peoples are siblings in liberty.

  Heeding Truman’s assessment “The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want…poverty and strife…(and) reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died,” in order to foster liberty, the Alliance must advance human liberty and dignity through diplomatic, political, economic, and cultural initiatives aimed empowering and emancipating the individual, their communities, and their emerging democratic governments from dictatorial rule. The Alliance must not have a military component; but member and observer nations will retain their powers to continue or commence security agreements with other free countries through bi-lateral and multi-lateral treaties. Never must any member or observer nation’s rights be infringed upon by the Alliance.

  Now, two sanguine hopes. The U.S. and Israel will lead the establishment of the Liberty Alliance. And, secondly, the Liberty Alliance’s headquarters shall be sited on the free soil once scarred by colonialism, communism, fascism, world wars, and the Holocaust – Eastern Europe, where, cradled in the intrepid human sprit, liberty’s lamp triumphantly pierced these benighted recesses of evil.

  In heralding the Liberty Alliance, we do not invite the Free World to exit the UN. Especially by participating in a Democracy Caucus, the United States, Israel and all free nations should remain in the UN to advance or defend liberty by keeping her enemies close. But we must not be so mad as to pay through the nose to get kicked in our assets. So, a simple proposal: no free nation will pay more to the UN than its lowest paying tyrants – like North Korea and Burma, who only contribute $170,660 (or .010% of the UN’s regular budget). Free nations’ monies and personnel spared from the UN shall be dedicated to the Liberty Alliance.

  Doubtless, discombobulated global sophisticates will decry the Liberty Alliance as undesirable and/or impossible. They are overwrought and best ignored. For as we know, “The day is short; the task is great.” But we will not withdraw from it. The United States, Israel, and all free peoples are cemented and steeled by the harmonic bonds of liberty, comity, and duty. Like Harry Truman and the greatest generations of both our nations – to date – we, will not bend, we will not break in our reasoned faith in a future graced by free nations. “We (will) keep that hope alive.”

  Toiling our way up to that day, may God grant all free peoples the strength to be as He in Marie Syrkin’s verse, The Strongest:

  I’ll be the strongest amid you,

  Not lightning, stream or mountain blue,

  But dew that falling to the earth

  Gives birth.

  I’ll be the strongest in my hour,

  And lofty tree and quiet flower

  Will both drink gratefully

  From me.

  I’ll be the strongest in the land.

  I’ll be the word that heals, the hand

  That unseen and still, as from above,

  Gives love.”

  May it be. And may God continue to grace, guard, guide, and bless the people of the United States, Israel, and our entire human family.

• 12. coulterfan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

  Mark,

  Are you SURE that you accurately quoted ‘Decidenator’? I KNOW that you have few, if any, journalistic standards, but you should know better than to so blatantly fabricate straw-man positions by putting words into peoples’ mouths!

• 13. marmotton » Taking &hellip  |  November 24th, 2007 at 3:25 pm

  [...] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerptI’ve got a prison regimen ready for them which will make them wish they were dead…unless, of course, they start to think about it and understand the debt they owe; such people will come to love their regimen as the basis of their path … [...]

• 14. coulterfan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 3:27 pm

  Mark,

  I also wanted to ask you (rather than just put words in your mouth as you do for others) - if you DON’T consider ‘waterboarding’ as torture, does this mean that you are okay with other countries using such techniques on OUR United States Soldiers?

  I mean, either it’s a valid questioning technique and allowable under the rules of war, or it is not. Correct?

• 15. The Decidenator  |  November 24th, 2007 at 3:50 pm

  Mark said:

  (The Decidenator is) actually upset that some people are against abortion but also in favor of fighting a war”

  No, I wasn’t. I didn’t express any opinion about either issue. My concern is that in your original post, you claimed that you were upset about hypocrisy because some people are against wars and not against abortions.

  That’s fine, I can see some hypocrisy in that too. But if that’s hypocrisy, then taking the opposite stand on both issues (pro-war and anti-abortion) is hypocritical too. And if you were really concerned by people who were hypocrites, you’d be calling out the folks above who are defending those stances.

  They have given you a great opportunity to defend your position against hypocrisy. Go get ‘em!

• 16. neocon  |  November 24th, 2007 at 4:19 pm

  coulterfan,

  I would be okay with other countries waterboarding our soldiers. That’s actually much preferable than beheading them, which is the current practice.

  In fact, we waterboard our own soldiers to familiarize them with techniques that may be used against them if they were ever captured.

  Are you okay with that?

• 17. Ricorun  |  November 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pm

  neocon: In fact, we waterboard our own soldiers to familiarize them with techniques that may be used against them if they were ever captured.

  Did they talk? If not, why not? If so, what did they admit to? Perhaps more importantly, did the interrogators know they were waterboarding someone they knew had nothing to potentially divulge?

  It seems to me that there are two issues here: (1) whether waterboarding is acceptable in extreme circumstances, and; (2) if it is, is it more effective than other, less controversial procedures?

  I assume that everyone believes that waterboarding for the sake of waterboarding (i.e., just to be cruel) is unacceptable… right? Or is that okay too?

• 18. neocon  |  November 24th, 2007 at 5:22 pm

  Rico,

  What a typical liberal drama queen question:

  “Or is that okay too?”

  No dear, it’s not.

  But I do believe some of our soldiers divulged that Rove leaked Plames name and that Bush directed Hurricane Katrina to NO because he doesn’t like blacks.

• 19. coulterfan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 6:10 pm

  >>In fact, we waterboard our own soldiers to familiarize them with techniques that may be used against them if they were ever captured.
  Are you okay with that?<<

  This is absurd! Are you honestly trying to equate training to withstand torture with torture itself? Military personal have also been locked in prison to simulate the experience of being captured- is this the same as actually being captured? What about paintball training, is this the same as engaging the enemy in combat?

  Of course I’m okay with soldiers voluntarily having simulated waterboarding performed on them as a training exercise! The difference is that they KNOW that they will not die, they are in the hands of FRIENDLY soldiers, etc, etc. In contrast, waterboarding CAN and DOES kill people and is not as abbreviated and carefully performed as it is during training exercises.

  The US used to be a beacon to the world in regards to humane and just treatment of prisoners and POWS. Thanks to Bush and his supporters, we now can no longer condemn torture when done by brutal regimes. We court-martialed soldiers during VietNam when they engaged in waterboarding- during WWII, Nazis would GIVE THEMSELVES up to us because they KNEW that we would treat them humanely. This is no longer the case.

  At least you are honest. We are a FAR WAY away from the days when bruises on US soldiers’ faces were seen as evidence of torture. Evidently, you and your ilk would allow far worse to happen to US soldiers these days. Sadly, we no longer have any moral high ground thanks to this kind of thinking.

• 20. Ricorun  |  November 24th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

  neocon, thanks hon, you’re a gem. But mine was more of a rhetorical question. You’ve been around here long enough to at least suspect that there are some who really DON’T have a problem with cruelty for no other reason than to send a message. You might disagree with that sentiment, but you know it exists. I mean heck, just yesterday Khan asked why take these guys prisoners in the first place? Why not just off them? You didn’t take him to task for that comment. You must have missed it, as did everyone else apparently — except me. Likewise, no one on the right criticizes anyone else on the right for saying stuff like it’s okay to turn Iran into radioactive glass — except me. Or that it’s okay to exterminate all Muslims — except me. And yet it is claimed that the Dems are the only ones that protect their own. If only that were true.

  By the way, I thought your comments about friendly soldiers admitting to Rove and Katrina were pretty funny.

• 21. neocon  |  November 24th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

  coulter,

  No question you and your ilk are champions of human rights. Why just look at the decades of human misery you have overlooked rather than confront tyrants. Take a look at the tireless work you’ve put in in Darfur putting an end to that travesty. Look at the millions of unborn babies you have tirelessly defended, or the victims of violent crimes you’ve protected by allowing the criminals a second chance at life and to offend. Look at our troops that you so tirelessly worry about by accusing them of torture and rape while in the middle of a battlefield.

  I must agree coulter, you and your hypocritical, treasonous ilk certainly are looking out for the best interest of human compassion and dignity.

  Not.

• 22. Ricorun  |  November 24th, 2007 at 6:47 pm

  coulterfan, speaking hypothetically…. would you be against limited use of waterboarding — or any other technique for that matter — if it could be conclusively demonstrated that the technique in question had the greatest possibility of procuring evidence from a high profile detainee in a time-critical situation? Would it be okay if, say the president, or the SecDef were required to sign off on it? Or are those techniques just wrong, always, regardless of the situation — even if (hypothetically again) they are the only ones that are likely to work in the time available?

• 23. Death Articles » Bl&hellip  |  November 24th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

  [...] Original post by Mark Noonan [...]

• 24. neocon  |  November 24th, 2007 at 6:59 pm

  Rico,

  I believe Khan was trying to point out the absurdity of liberals defense of the indefensible, rather than being literal.

• 25. coulterfan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 7:03 pm

  neocon,

  You are ridiculously setting false positions which I never advocated instead of engaging in direct debate on the issues at hand. I would address them, but you have no real interest in my answers. . . just to divert attention from your illogical, hypocritical views.

• 26. coulterfan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 7:09 pm

  Ricorun,

  Interesting question. However, the hypothetical nature of your questions makes it very difficult to answer. I am on principle against torture (and I do consider waterboarding to be torture). Therefore, I would never advocate nor promote the usage of it under any real-world circumstances. However, if I KNEW for a fact that I could extract ACCURATE information by using it to save my own family, for instance- I WOULD do it, but would be prepared to face the consequences because I believe it should be illegal.

  On a related note- suppose you are against abortion, but you could predict with 100% ACCURACY when an embryo would be a murderer, rapist, or terrorist. Would you then allow abortion under these ‘limited’ circumstances? If you could have aborted Bin Laden before he was born, for instance, would you?

  Again, interesting question with little to no real-world application. But I’m still curious about your answer.

• 27. Angry Redneck  |  November 24th, 2007 at 7:23 pm

  For me, the choice is simple…I am against abortion, and for the death penalty.

  I used to work on Death Row, in both the men’s prison as well as the women’s prison, with more than 180 death row inmates. I had the “pleasure” of working with the inmates (not as a custody officer, but rather as part of the medical staff) and was able to get to know them after they were judged…after they were getting the treatment they may have needed on the street…after they were clean from the crack, they coke, the smack, or any other drug they may have been on. In saying that, these are not excuses for behavior…I tend to be a bit more “Old Testament” when it comes to punishment for crimes.

  When did mercy come into play when they were raping, molesting, robbing, mugging, and ultimately murdering? I’ll go one step further than being pro-death penalty…I think we need to expand the use for those who molest our children. As a matter of fact, five states have my praise…Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana, Montana, and Oklahoma. These states have passed laws allowing the use of the death penalty for those convicted of a second or greater offense of sexual crimes to those under the age of 14. I think we all need to stand up and let those who commit crimes against our kids know that this will not be acceptable and you will be held accountable.

• 28. Casper  |  November 24th, 2007 at 7:29 pm

  Ricorun,
  I know you addressed this to coulterfan, so i hope you don’t mind if I take a crack at it.

  “would you be against limited use of waterboarding — or any other technique for that matter — if it could be conclusively demonstrated that the technique in question had the greatest possibility of procuring evidence from a high profile detainee in a time-critical situation?”

  I would want to see some pretty good evidence before I would even consider using waterboarding or any other technique. The problem at this point is that no one has presented any evidence that it works better or even as well than other other less strenuous techniques. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that people being waterboarded will say anything to get it to stop, whether it is true or not.

• 29. neocon  |  November 24th, 2007 at 7:36 pm

  coulter,

  I have seen your posts enough to know exactly where you stand. And your refernce to Bush further demonstrates you BDS.

  So I feel 100% confident claiming that your “moral highground” comment is a complete joke. As is your offer of a debate. It’s impossible to debate someone, like yourself, who simply regurgitates tired old talking points and baseless metaphors. For example waterboarding; which has been applied to THREE combatants in six years.

  Liberals are such a waste of time.

• 30. neocon  |  November 24th, 2007 at 7:39 pm

  Would you then allow abortion under these ‘limited’ circumstances? If you could have aborted Bin Laden before he was born, for instance, would you? - coulter

  coulter,

  you just proved my point about your inability to debate.

• 31. coulterfan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 8:11 pm

  neocon,

  It is you who is unable to debate and a complete waste of time. Anyone who would STILL be a neocon in spite of all evidence that the policies are fatally flawed is SERIOUSLY lacking the ability to think critically.

  I actually have never regurgitated talking points, unlike you who seem to never stray from them. One of the primary strategies when you have no logical basis for your argument is always to personally attack.

  I know it’s hard for you to grasp, but my hypothetical question was the exact same formulation as the hypothetical question I answered.

  As another example (assuming you really care to understand)- I am against the legalization of heroin. However, if heroin was the ONLY WAY my terminally sick mother was not in agonizing pain, you can be sure as hell that I would procure it for her- regardless of the consequences.

  So, what about it? If you had the opportunity to abort Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, etc . . . would you do it? Or would you wait until after they killed thousands?

• 32. coulterfan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 8:14 pm

  When it comes to the death penalty or torture, why don’t Christians ask themselves:

  What would Jesus do?

  If you honestly think Jesus himself would torture or kill a person no matter how guilty, then go ahead. What DID you think He meant when he said, ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ and ‘You have heard it said ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’, but I tell you this: If your brother should smite your left cheek, turn to him your right.’

• 33. Mark Noonan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 8:23 pm

  Coulter,

  We had a very, very long discussion on the subject of waterboarding…I think it went to more than 300 comments. Did you miss it?

  If you want my short answer - there is never any justification for inflicting needless pain on any human being. What the North Vietnamese did to our troops at the Hanoi Hilton - for years - was the inflicting of needless pain…just torturing them in order to try and obtain bogus confessions of war crimes which the NV could then use in propaganda broadcasts no one would believe. What we do in Gitmo, if it does inflict pain, is to obtain information about acts which by their very nature are inhuman and outside of any standard of human conduct.

  Also, no matter what else eventuates, when US troops are captured they will be abused - such is the nature of our world these days. Oddly enough, the last time a nation treated captive Americans decently was during World War Two, and it was the Nazis who treated our boys relatively decently (though, even there, serious abuses did occur). We can rely upon it from now until Doomsday that any captured Americans will be treatly badly, at best, and horrifically, at worst. And this is no matter what we do, so there’s no need to worry about whether or not how we treat captive enemies will adversely effect captive Americans. Its a moot point.

• 34. Angry Redneck  |  November 24th, 2007 at 8:25 pm

  I’ll be honest with both of you, that is probably the most ridiculous “hypothetical” I have ever seen…and I have a lot of kids, so I have see a lot of “what if’s”. There are a lot of things that I don’t “grasp” coming from the liberal side, coulterfan. One being how is that statement not a personal attack? Neocon…you should know better than to skinny dip with snapping turtles. Remember: You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, assuming you want to catch flies.

• 35. Mark Noonan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 8:39 pm

  Coulter,

  Now, back to the subject of the thread.

  What would Jesus do?

  Act in much greater wisdom and mercy then we are capable of - he is God and the salvation of mankind; we’re just people, and we are a Fallen people, at that. We’re not going to get it completely right as long as this world lasts.

  In all of my life, in all that I have read and heard, I’ve never come across a better argument against the death penalty than that which Tolkien inserted into the Lord of the Rings:

  ‘I am sorry,’ said Frodo. ‘But I am frightened, and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.’

  ‘You have not seen him,’ Gandalf broke in.

  ‘No, and I don’t want to,’ said Frodo. ‘I can’t understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.’

  ‘Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends…’

  That is my view of it, and why I’m opposed to the death penalty - because I’m not wise enough to see all ends. Certainly, there are some who will essentially force us to kill them in defense of our selves or our society - but I will not deal out death in judgement.

  The problem, I think, with liberal/left opponents of the death penalty is that, being of materialist and determinist philosophy (even if they don’t know it), death is viewed as the very worst thing that can happen to a person. As a Christian, I know that the very worst thing which can happen to me is not my death, but my damnation. Life is good, and our natural business lies in prolonging our life by wise courses of action - but there are many things worse than death.

  To be a dishonest person - relentlessly and without remorse - that is worse than death. To be a person without hope - that is worse than death. To be consumed by envy and hatred, that is worse than death.

  I want to live, but I want to live forever - and that means I must disdain death here on this world, and be ever willing to surrender this life.

• 36. coulterfan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 8:54 pm

  >>Also, no matter what else eventuates, when US troops are captured they will be abused - such is the nature of our world these days. Oddly enough, the last time a nation treated captive Americans decently was during World War Two, <<

  This doesn’t mean that we should be as bad as our enemies. And, contrary to what you assert (and VERY surprisingly), Lynch and the others captured by Saddam’s army claim that they were treated well. I think that this was only due to intense fear- the Iraqis KNEW that they were going to lose and didn’t want to face the possibility of war crimes. Still, facts are facts and there was no evidence of torture or mistreatment towards American POWs during the (short) Iraq War against Saddam’s military. I know you’re going to jump all over me, but do yourselves a favor and RESEARCH what Lynch said about her treatment as a POW.

  At the least, shouldn’t we set an example to the rest of the world what humane treatment of prisoners means?

  What WOULD Jesus do? You think He would condone torture?

  Redneck:

  I agree. Hypotheticals are NOT valid arguments. Still, they can be kind of interesting and provoke thought.

• 37. phnx  |  November 24th, 2007 at 9:13 pm

  “The problem at this point is that no one has presented any evidence that it works better or even as well than other other less strenuous techniques.” Casper

  And yet after 2 minutes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed coiuldn’t stop talking…sounds pretty effective to me.

  “In fact, there is a lot of evidence that people being waterboarded will say anything to get it to stop, whether it is true or not. ” Casper

  So since there’s LOT’S of evidence as you say can you provide some for us all, or is this more leftists pacifist bluster?

• 38. neocon  |  November 24th, 2007 at 9:21 pm

  coulter,

  Anybody who claims: “Bush and his supporters” have damaged the reputation of the US obviously lacks critical thinking skills and instead regurgitates the narrative du jour of the left. And that is what you continuously do. In fact you proceed to meme another liberal deflection tactic “what would Jesus do?”

  I am convinced you wouldn’t have the slightest notion of what Jesus would do and furthermore, why would that matter to athiest liberals?

  Furthermore, none of us could ever pretend to know what Jesus would do however, the following could be a hint:

  Proverbs 8:1
  To fear the Lord is to hate evil.

  Here’s the million dollar question: Do you consider extreme Islam evil?

  You proceed to perpetuate another liberal lie in claiming that the US is just as bad as our enemies, which is a complete LIE.

  Apologists and relativists like yourself are the reason chaos continues. You have a lot of blood on your hands. I would repent if I were you.

• 39. neocon  |  November 24th, 2007 at 9:25 pm

  redneck,

  I have no interest in entertaining or befriending coulterfan. I consider he and his ilk responsible for the death and chaos around the world because of their theoretical, cocktail party approach to the worlds problems.

  They have no regard for human life and suffering, and will only feign concern when it ultimately means their agenda will be furthered. They are as dishonest as the day is long.

• 40. Casper  |  November 24th, 2007 at 9:39 pm

  “So since there’s LOT’S of evidence as you say can you provide some for us all, or is this more leftists pacifist bluster?”

  Ok, since you brought up Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, let’s start with him.

  “One CIA official cautioned that “many of Mohammed’s claims during interrogation were ‘white noise’ designed to send the U.S. on wild goose chases or to get him through the day’s interrogation session.” For example according to Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent and the top Republican on the terrorism panel of the House Intelligence Committee, he has admitted responsibility for the Bali nightclub bombing, but his involvement “could have been as small as arranging a safe house for travel. It could have been arranging finance.” Mohammed also made the admission that he was “responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center Operation”, which killed six and injured more than 1,000 when a bomb was detonated in an underground garage, Mohammed did not plan the attack, but he may have supported it. Dr. Michael Welner noted that by offering legitimate information to interrogators, Mohammed had secured the leverage to provide disinformation as well.”

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

  Ball is in your court phnx. Prove that waterboarding is the best method of interrogation. Prove it’s better than other techniques.

• 41. neocon  |  November 24th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

  After waterboarding, Sheik Mohammed offered up vary valuable information over tea.

  http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/how-the-cia-bro.html

  And considering that waterboarding worked in that case, which is only the third time waterboarding was used, and considering that the technique is just one of six in the US approved interrogation techniques, I would say that liberals have once again have completely overblown and over exaggerated and non-story.

  Ball is in your court Casper.

• 42. Jeremiah  |  November 24th, 2007 at 9:48 pm

  I got to thinking about this today, I thought, the reason the Death Penalty is not a detterant to crime is because it is not carried out swift enough, there should be no holding period, after trial they should have a minimum of three to ten days.

  I looked this up, and sure enough, King Solomon explained this–

  Ecclesiasties 8:11

  When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong.

  Now, what would Jesus do?

  On the Cross.

  One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at Him: “aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
  But the other criminal rebuked him.
  “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

  You see, the criminal knew!
  Innocent people are not to be murdered–Murder is wrong.

  Obedience to the government–

  Romans 13:4
  For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sward for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities…

  1 Timothy 1:8
  We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which He entrusted to me.

  Jesus very own words in favor of Capital punishment.

  Rev. 13:10/second half of verse.

  If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed.

  So, That’s what you have to go by, is the Word of God!!

  Jeremiah

• 43. Casper  |  November 24th, 2007 at 9:59 pm

  neocon,
  Can you prove it’s only been used three times?
  Can you prove we have received valuable information each time?

• 44. neocon  |  November 24th, 2007 at 10:43 pm

  I didn’t claim we did obtain valuable intel each time, and from what I have read from many sources, the technique has been used three times.

  And why would anyone have to prove that it is the “best method of interrogation”. I don’t think anyone has ever made that claim either.

  This is a non-story. Another red herring from the left.

• 45. neocon  |  November 24th, 2007 at 10:48 pm

  I overlooked one thing. Coulter asserted in his earlier post that the Iraqis treated our prisoners well because of their fear of being charged with war crimes after their assured defeat.

  When I stopped laughing I remembered Milosevic died of old age before they were even close to a verdict in the Hague. I’d be frightened to.

• 46. Mark Noonan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 11:01 pm

  Coulter,

  That would more be a function of lack of time - back in 1991, the US and British pilots who were captured were treated abominably. Face it - our enemies don’t live by our rules and thus will do whatever they think expedient at any given time.

  And, of course we don’t become like them - but my point was that arguing against waterboarding because of what the enemy might do in response is absurd. As I said, I’m opposed to the needless infliction of pain - but if the relevant authorities fully believe that the application of stern measure will produce a beneficial result, then I will leave that prudential judgement up to them, checked of course by varied oversight, and the ultimate verdict of the American people at the ballot box.

  And now you have to get into what I said when I got us back on subject.

• 47. Bad Boxer  |  November 24th, 2007 at 11:10 pm

  Years ago, when I was news anchor at a small market TV station in Central California, a wire service story came through, saying, “Caryl Chessman dies in San Quentin gas chamber”.
  He was the nortorious “red light killer” captured in the 1940s in Southern California; sent to trail, convicted on several counts of murder, and given the death penalty. Fifteen years later, after many appeals, he paid the price.

  This story sticks in my craw, and is the main reason I believe the death penalty is not acceptable.

  Since the trials of Chesman, think of the countless BILLIONS of dollars spent by taxpayers for attorney’s fees to power these hundreds of thousands of appeals for convicted killers. What a waste of money.

  Add to this the numbers of times DNA has given someone, charged with a capital crime, freedom from death row.

  Do away with the death penalty. Instead, give
  sentences of life in prison without possibility of parole.

  Notify your congressional representitive and demand the death penalty must go.

• 48. Casper  |  November 24th, 2007 at 11:16 pm

  neocon,
  If I remember correctly, at one point you had a couple of nephews serving in Iraq. Are they still there? Is there anything they need? I have had my students write letters to some of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and I could have them write more.

  Of course this does two things. It gives my students more writing practice and it gives me less time to indoctrinate them. LOL

• 49. Jeremiah  |  November 24th, 2007 at 11:21 pm

  Fifteen years later, after many appeals, he paid the price.

  Bad Boxer,

  That’s the very reason the Death Penalty is not a deterrant to crime now, is because they hold them way too long!!

  They need to shorten the trial period, 30 to 50 days maximum, and Death Row no later than 3 to 10 days after trial–

  No hassle!!

  Get a grip and take a bite out o’ crime!!

  Jeremiah

• 50. Angry Redneck  |  November 24th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

  Bad Boxer,

  Please tell me that you don’t think that life instead of death will deter any appeals…I sincerely hope you are a bit more intelligent than that. If money is your argument, then do a bit of research and post how much money it costs us taxpayers to house an inmate each year. I would also be VERY interested in the number of times DNA evidence released someone from the row.

• 51. Gozer the Carpathian  |  November 25th, 2007 at 2:20 am

  -Bad Boxer

  I’m with Angry Redneck on this one. The money argument isn’t a very good one what with how much we pay to keep an inmate locked up. Sure it sounds nice for them to get life, as long as they actually do.

  On top of that, I’d prefer it more if our prisions were all like the one in Arizona that Sherrif Joe Arpahoe (I know I spelled that wrong) runs. Lower cost and lower crime now that folks in the area know jail is BAD. Not just a break from the day to day criminal activities. :(

• 52. AAR  |  November 25th, 2007 at 9:29 am

  The death penalty is a deterrent!!!

  That’s the message the American people need to know and understand!

  Washington Post…

  What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument _ whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

  “Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it,” said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. “The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect.”

  …

  Among the conclusions:

  _ Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

  _ Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

  …

  The reports have horrified death penalty opponents…

  AAR

• 53. neocon  |  November 25th, 2007 at 10:34 am

  AAR,

  Would that be a scientific consensus or scientific conclusion? Nevertheless, if it is scientific, there is no way the liberals coud oppose it, right?

• 54. AAR  |  November 25th, 2007 at 11:50 am

  neocon,

  If the science god says it’s so, it must be so…

  The fact that universities and their academic disciples are among those doing the research and conducting the studies should convince even the most liberal of the Liberals!

  Not only does the death penalty deter murders, and I believe many other crimes, but the studies confirm we need to dramatically speed up the process! As for the rest of the criminals in our “overcrowded and uncomfortable” jails and prisons — put them to work building more and larger facilities!!!

  The rest of us already know it from common sense, but we must work to re-educate the American public because most of them are products of the indoctrination and brainwashing from the liberal’s public education system!

  Remember when rape carried the death penalty? That’s when rape was rare and a “big deal” — not something as common as shoplifting!!!

  As far as the U.N. is concerned, Americans should tell them to get lost!

  AAR

• 55. Ricorun  |  November 25th, 2007 at 11:50 am

  This might be a bit late, but getting back to the subject of “enhanced interrogation techniques” or “torture”, whatever you want to call waterboarding and/or related techniques… Casper asked for proof that waterboarding had been used only three times. Well, this doesn’t constitute proof, but that’s what this article says. The article also mentions that the technique hasn’t been used since 2003. ABC news has been running a series of articles on the issue. Apparently they have one or more people on the inside willing to talk to them.

  Casper also asked if reliable information had been obtained each time. Again, this article doesn’t constitute proof either, but their contention is no. In fact, in the case of Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, it produced important info that is now discredited.

  neocon also linked to another ABC news article, which indicated that waterboarding worked on Khalid Sheik Mohammed. But as Casper subsequently pointed out, some officials aren’t sure whether everything he told his interrogators is reliable. Also, later in the article a guy named Brad Garrett suggested that, Mohammed probably would have talked eventually even if he hadn’t been waterboarded. Of course, that’s speculation. And the operative word there is “eventually”.

  So there you go. Some people think such techniques work, others do not, and some go so far as to claim such techniques produce more questionable information than reliable info. It’s hard to say for sure, because the whole enterprise is shrouded in secrecy. I’m not complaining — it should be, for lots of reasons. It is as it is.

  The questions I asked earlier in the thread were designed to try to constrain the debate. In other words, if you put enough “ifs” in front of the question of when such procedures might be acceptable, most people will eventually concede that yes, under certain restricted circumstances — and IF all of the conditions you mention are true — go ahead. Likewise, if you withdraw enough “ifs”, most people won’t find is acceptable. For example, most people would not condone such techniques if they are applied solely for sadistic reasons. In other words, most people are not as black and white on the issue as opponents on one side tend to assume about the other.

  My own opinion is this: because I lack any true knowledge of how it is determined which “ifs” might apply, and considering that there seems to be a difference of opinion among well-meaning individuals within the business, I can’t say unconditionally that such techniques should never be applied. However, I do believe that the call should very clearly be made by someone very high up in the chain of command — say, the president. If not the president, then the SecDef. It’s their head that should be on the line, not some lower-level grunt.

  So now, let me reply to coulterfan’s hypothetical, because he was so kind to reply to mine. The question was: “If you could have aborted Bin Laden before he was born, for instance, would you?” My response would have to contain many “ifs”. For example, IF it were the case that I somehow had foreknowledge of what the man would grow up to be, and IF I was certain that no intervention in the interrim would change things, and IF I were certain that no one else would eventually take his place (i.e., eliminating the possibility that something like 9-11 would never happen), and IF I had the authority to make the final determination, then yes, I probably would. But those are really big “ifs”, and in any practical sense, they are impossible.

  Just so you know, a friend of mine who I had known for many years (who also happened to be the first woman I ever really loved) was killed on 9-11. So it’s kinda personal to me.

• 56. neocon  |  November 25th, 2007 at 11:58 am

  I could not agree more Spook. The UN is currently completely corrupt, inefficient and ineffective. I believe that there is a place for the UN, but it would need a clear mission statement and a complete overhaul of delegates.

• 57. Jereiah  |  November 25th, 2007 at 11:59 am

  AAR,

  I agree that the Death Penalty is a deterrent to crime, that’s why we need it!!

  But we need to use it more swiftly, with none of the appeals and all that!!
  After 12 or 15 years of trials and stuff, society has mostly forgot about the criminal when he finally gets his punishment, and most people make more schemes to do wrong, they say to themselves, “I got a chance to get off scott free”.

  We shouldn’t let serial murderers have to think for a split second about their fate …. they should get their punishment the day they get the verdict.

  Jeremiah

• 58. Almiranta  |  November 25th, 2007 at 12:20 pm

  The decidenator is just plain goofy, regurgitating radical Lefty talking points because it lets him feel superior without having to actually DO anything—like think.

  But then he might truly NOT see a difference between removing a butcher who has raped, tortured, and slaughtered people, and wiping out an unborn child who has never committed the least offense against anyone.

  As far as allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest, the baby is still innocent. As a woman, I reject the claim that women are so inherently weak and fragile and silly that they simply CANNOT BEAR to carry a child that reminds them of a bad experience.

  OK, maybe this could apply to Lib women, if they are as silly as the men who post here, or like plainjane. But the women in MY life, going back to my pioneer grandmother, take pride in being strong, and would not have a problem in telling the difference between an innocent result of a crime and the person who perpretated that crime. She would not have to keep the baby, to make it an ongoing part of her life, but she would not have to destroy it—as if THAT would make up for the crime or remove it from her memory.

  But I’ll make you a deal: I’ll take capital punishment off the table if you outlaw abortion. I’ll agree to house, feed, and clothe the most vile of the vile, the truly inhuman who have killed and would kill again if given half a chance, in exchange for an agreement that the truly innocent will not be tortured and dismembered merely because they are inconvenient.

  Deal?

  As for torture, Rico, you are far too smart and rational to buy into that fatuous old Lib whine about how you can’t get real information from torture. Sure, if you ask something like “Did you shoot the Pope?” and make it clear you will continue to pull out fingernails till you get the answer you want, you’ll get the answer you want, correct or not.

  But interrogation techniques are far far more subtle and sophisticated than that, and good interrogators can pick up on all sorts of tidbits which may seem insignificant to the questionee but which can be used to convince another prisoner that someone has said far more that he really has, setting in motion a whole cascade of information-gathering.

  Besides, it’s not the ACT of torture that is most effective—it is the POSSIBILITY of torture. When we rush to hold the hands of terrorists and assure them that no matter how many they have killed, no matter how many they are planning to kill, no matter how long they may be held and questioned, they will NEVER be subjected to discomfort, much less torture, we are telling them to just hang on and outwait the questioners, no matter what the cost to innocent lives.

  I submit that the perception that we can, and MIGHT, inflict any of many degrees of real unpleasantness is the most valuable tool of the interrogator of the kinds of people who will gleefully destroy as many human lives as possible, as often as possible. The human mind, the imagination, can inflict more pressure than actual physical pain, but we need to be able to work on that human mind and let it speculate for itself what might lie ahead. A blithe dismissal of “torture”—especially after defining “torture” as pretty much anything the prisoner might not like—is removing that pressure.

  The act of allowing a prisoner to define “torture” according to what HE would find most unpleasant has an aspect of “please dont’ throw me in the briar patch” which I find bizzarre.

• 59. Ricorun  |  November 25th, 2007 at 12:28 pm

  Almiranta: As for torture, Rico, you are far too smart and rational to buy into that fatuous old Lib whine about how you can’t get real information from torture.

  I submitted a post wherein I talk about the issue at some length, but apparently it’s “awaiting moderation”.

• 60. Angry Redneck  |  November 25th, 2007 at 12:44 pm

  Consider me selfish, but one terrorists discomfort is worth quite a bit less than countless numbers of innocent lives that could be lost for the information they hold.

• 61. Jeremiah  |  November 25th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

  The consequences of actions commited are like, for instance…

  If one is sexually promiscuous, and that person gets a sexually transmitted disease … we can ask God for forgiveness, and He will forgive us .. He’s already forgiven us, but does that necessarily mean that He will take away the disease?
  No!

  you still have to pay the price!!
  That’s the way the law works, and the way it should work in our system of law … no second chances!! If you don’t, then you just give the criminals more excuse to do more crime!!

  Oh well, if no justice is served in this life, I’m confident and know it will be on Judgement day.

  Jeremiah

• 62. AAR  |  November 25th, 2007 at 1:13 pm

  Almiranta,

  While watching a news story this morning about police, I though of another more “humane” interrogation technique to replace those couple of minutes of “water boarding” (fear of drowning) that the Looney Liberals find so objectionable and so utterly abhorrent (even if it might save the lives of their family member in Iraq, or American cities, or millions of American citizens)!

  Issue TASERS to all of our interrogators and military. If a terrorist won’t talk, a few shots with a TASER and 50,000 volts of electricity should help them talk. It might create a fear of electrocution, but at least the terrorists won’t have to fear a few seconds or a couple of minutes of simulated drowning!

  And the best thing — it’s not torture! Police all across America are buying and using more and more TASERS each and every day, even on teenagers and people who refuse to sign their speeding tickets!

  AAR

• 63. Brian Gregory  |  November 25th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

  As someone who is both pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, I have often struggled to justify my seemingly conflicting positions. I have long believed that murderous criminals do not deserve to live, but I have consistently been told that this conflicts with the “culture of life” advocated by President Bush and myself. Can anyone who thinks in a similar manner help me find reasonable justification for these positions? Thank you!

• 64. Mark Noonan  |  November 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pm

  Brian,

  Both an individual and a society have a right to self defense. In the exercise of this right, a person or society might find it necessary to inflict death. Given this, there is nothing wrong, per se, with the death penalty. What is key in any action of self defense is the use of force proportional to the needs of defense - in other words, we must not over-react.

  A man going on a shooting rampage at a mall may only be stopped by shooting him - and when you shoot at someone, you shoot to kill. On the other hand, a man who is burglarising local stores is not a discernable threat to life…so, even at the cost of his escaping, the use of deadly force would not be justified. The reason people like me have come to generally oppose the death penalty is that once a man is in custody - no matter how horrible his crimes - he has generally ceased to be a further threat to life, and that removal of the threat allows us to consider the matter purely from the aspect of justice and mercy.

  But, a person can also come to the prudential judgement that even though the captured criminal is no further threat to life, his crimes fully justify the forfeiture of his life. I do not say a person who wants to execute a Jeffrey Dahmer is wrong - I merely say that, in my view, there is a way to treat him which fulfills the requirements of justice, but also allows us to exercise that quality of mercy God commands us to show. As a Christian, I am under command to love my neighbors as myself - all of them, even the psychopathic serial killers…I am to love them entirely divorced from any considerations of what they do; I may have to deal out death, but I believe that I can show greater love to a person by giving them their chance at ultimate redemption.

  As it relates to abortion - abortion is a different species of action. While we are justified in using appropriate force - even up to deadly force - to defend ourselves and our society, we are never justified in the deliberate taking of life which is not threatening our lives, or the life of our society. An unborn child may be the most inconvenient thing in the whole world for a particular person, but except in rare instances, such a child poses no threat to the life of the mother, or to society as a whole. And, of course, in those rare instances where carrying a child to term would actually ensure the death of the mother, it is morally licit for a medical procedure which will save the mother, even if an incidental result of that procedure is the death of the unborn child (we can never seek the child’s life…but if, say, a pregnant woman was bleeding internally and the only way to stop it was to remove the womb - and thus kill the child - then that is ok; tragic, but morally acceptable).

  To say there is an inconsistency in being pro-death penalty and pro-life is to assume an inconsistency between being pro-apple pie and anti-tennis. Such a thing is absurd - and only a pro-abortion fanatic could ever have posed the question as a moral quandry…that all too many of us have bought this line of thinking, even in part, shows just how badly abortion has twisted our moral sense.

  It is up to you, after thought and prayer, to decide how you will view the death penalty - opposing it or favoring it is not a moral imperitive; it is imperitive, on the other hand, that you work to prevent the un-necessary taking of life, so in order to be a person on firm moral ground, you must be anti-abortion.

• 65. Angry Redneck  |  November 25th, 2007 at 2:45 pm

  Brian,

  Not exactly sure how others justify their reasoning…for me it’s quite simple. Children are innocent, unable to speak for or protect themselves. Did they choose to be in existence? Adults, on the other hand, make choices…often affecting others. Adults make the decision to have sex, excluding the obvious rape situations. Adults also make the decision to commit a crime and therefore should accept responsibility.

  After working with inmates (a majority of my time was spent working with those on death row), and hearing just about every excuse imaginable, it was nice to meet a few who had the same view I did. One such inmate denied his automatic appeals to hasten his sentence and ultimate death back in September 1995. I had/have a lot of respect for this individual as he showed one characteristic I sincerely wish others, both incarcerated and not, had…responsibility…responsibility for our actions.

  We are a nation of laws, without the consequences for breaking them, we would be nothing more than a nation of suggestions.

• 66. Ricorun  |  November 25th, 2007 at 3:13 pm

  HEY MARK! (or Matt) my comment, which appears on my computer as comment #55, is still labeled as “awaiting moderation”. What’s up with that?

• 67. Jeremiah  |  November 25th, 2007 at 3:21 pm

  We are a nation of laws, without the consequences for breaking them, we would be nothing more than a nation of suggestions.

  Exactly, Angry Redneck!

  If there were no punishment for crime, what good is the law?

  Jeremiah

• 68. AAR  |  November 25th, 2007 at 3:53 pm

  Brian, Angry Redneck, & other Republicans, Conservatives, and Christians,

  Don’t worry about justifying what you believe to Liberals — it’s what you believe and that’s the way it is!

  Don’t fall for the Liberal Political Correctness! Even if Liberals can’t shake your belief, they are hoping to convince other readers to question their own beliefs, opinions, and views. Liberals don’t even need to change anyone’s belief to succeed. It’s enough just to make people think that others “might” think less of them or question them if they do speak out in defense of their beliefs. A silenced opponent is a defeated opponent… one less voice who might help strengthen and reassure other people who share those beliefs and opinions… one less voice speaking out against Liberals and their liberal agenda!

  Republicans, Conservatives, and Christians worry too much about justifying what they believe. Instead, find others who believe the same as you do. Re-affirm and strengthen your mutual beliefs.

  AAR

• 69. Brian Gregory  |  November 25th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

  Thanks to Mark, Angry Redneck, and AAR. You guys all really helped me. The reason I asked is that today, I randomly remembered an instance in 10th grade where I was the only member of my class who possesed these views, and I was asked to defend them. I did a decent job, but I’ve always wanted to have that moment back so I could give a real, eloquent defense of our beliefs. Thanks again!

• 70. Mark Noonan  |  November 25th, 2007 at 7:42 pm

  Ricorun,

  No idea - seems to be happening from time to time with the new blog program.

• 71. Bad Boxer  |  November 26th, 2007 at 1:46 am

  Jeremiah, Angry Redneck, Gozer the Carpathian,

  Your points are well taken.

  Jeremiah wants quicker justice. The question is - how can you get it done with the standard delaying processes the attorneys use? OJ gets indicted last week, and won’t see a jury until next spring or summer. A capital murder trail is usually delayed for a year.

  Angry Redneck wants to know how much it costs to house a prisoner. It would be a lot less-per-day if all the frills were eliminated. Explain to me why a killer gets attention from attorneys and the ACLU while those groups could care less about the victims of abortion?

  Gozer the Carpathian has the right answer - Sheriff Joe in Arizona and his bare bones jail in the 120 degree heat of the desert. The problem is - there isn’t another Sheriff in the country with pelotas like Sheriff Joe, and we all know it. Ask your county sheriff to start one of these camps and see what his PC answer is.

  I’m saying that life in prison without the possibility of parole is the best answer for a convicted killer with the present laws we have to deal with.

  My grandfather lived in Northern Montana as a homesteader beginning in 1910, and told me of
  horse thieves and killers being strung up. This would satisfy Jeremiah, Angry Redneck, and Gozen the Carpathian; with quick trials, no-cost housing, and a sheriff’s job made easier. The problem is - today’s politically correct atmosphere won’t allow it.

  Face it - we must fight the fight in diferent times and in different ways. Pray that another conservative Supreme Court Justice is selected by the next President so we can hack away at Roe v. Wade.

• 72. Almiranta  |  November 26th, 2007 at 11:05 am

  Again, I come back to my assertion that the POSSIBILITY of torture is a very important tool. We don’t have to use it. We could even have an internal and secret ruling that we could not use it. But the perception that it is out there, waiting, should not be discarded.

• 73. AAR  |  November 26th, 2007 at 12:40 pm

  Almiranta,

  You’re absolutely correct!!!

  Quoting from one of your prior posts…

  This lecturer said that one of the most effective techniques involves having a suspect in a room, being questioned in a fairly mild manner, while he can hear the screams of agony coming from a nearby room. Finally, when he seems pretty rattled, someone comes to the door to tell the interrogator that the other interrogation room will be ready “soon”. And the suspect is allowed to see what looks like bloody water being flushed off the floor, and stains on the walls.

  No one is actually hurt, you see. But the bad guy IS uncomfortable, so the Lefties would probably say that is torture.

  The point is, when you assure bad guys that they simply CANNOT be tortured, they are assured that they don’t have to say a word. It is the PROSPECT of torture that is the most effective, and if we lose that, we are fools.

  ~~~   Almiranta

   
  Most of the terrorists who were broken by waterboarding were never actually waterboarded. They broke and provided information because they “feared” they might be waterboarded. That fear, which Democrats (Liberals) want to remove from the table, actually kept the majority of them from experiencing any real pain, extended mental anguish, or harsher techniques such as actual waterbaording!

  Democrats (Liberals) have done exactly the same thing and undermined our efforts to reach a diplomatic solution in Iran. Democrats have basically assured Iran that they will block any attempts to use military action — real or imagined — against Iran. In so doing, Democrats have taken the “threat” of force off the table, and in effect, made a nuclear confrontation more likely!

  Liberals wouldn’t know how to play a real game of poker, where a good bluff can be just as good or better than a hand with the winning cards! Liberals would want it to be a “fair” game, with all cards turned face up on the table!

  AAR

• 74. Tractatus  |  November 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm

  As far as allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest, the baby is still innocent. As a woman, I reject the claim that women are so inherently weak and fragile and silly that they simply CANNOT BEAR to carry a child that reminds them of a bad experience.

  Except, of course, nobody is making the argument that women CANNOT BEAR such a child; they are merely making the argument that women should not be forced to bear such a child. But you sure gave that strawman what for!

• 75. Mark Noonan  |  November 26th, 2007 at 5:51 pm

  Tract,

  So, a person cannot or should not be forced to refrain from murder?

  There is the very strange thinking of abortion in a nutshell…monumentally at odds with basic rationality.

• 76. Jeremiah  |  November 26th, 2007 at 5:57 pm

  women should not be forced to bear such a child.

  Tractatus,

  We’re not “forcing” a woman…just doing what’s best for both Baby and Mommy.

  Sure, it’s a physical task, no one is denying that, but it is more mental than physical.

  The majority of pregnant women who choose to have an abortion do it for purely selfish reasons, “I don’t want to mess my relationship between me and my husband”, “I don’t want any conflict in my work place”, “I don’t want a child”.

  You see, it’s just totally unreasonable thoughts that arise in the woman’s thinking, and yet, not realizing the real mistake she is making by committing murder.

  If she doesn’t want a child, she needs to think before she acts.

  I don’t want children, so I must abstain from a relationship with a man. I can get married, but if I don’t want children I MUST abstain from sexual intercourse, and IF I DO get pregnant, then I MUST, I MUST…. choose to give my little innocent baby LIFE!!!
  PERIOD!!!

  Murder is WRONG…Don’t EVER get the thoughts of murdering for your own personal gain. NEVER!

  Jeremiah

• 77. Tractatus  |  November 26th, 2007 at 11:38 pm

  So, a person cannot or should not be forced to refrain from murder?
  

  Who said anything about murder? I’m talking about abortion. Not the same thing, despite your bleatings to the contrary.

  So, let’s try again, keeping in mind that we’re talking about abortion, not murder. (If I were a betting man, I’d bet a massive sum of money that you will be unable to stick to that–you simply must redefine abortion as murder, otherwise your whole schtick falls apart, plus it allows you to evade questions and, you know, thinking about things.) Why should government, and not a woman, make the choice about abortion? You’re quite into government making people’s decisions for them, apparently.

  I love it when somebody monumentally at odds with basic rationality (a creationist who thinks science is dead, Nazis were leftists, and that we found WMDs in Iraq, just among the most obvious examples) tries to offload that major issue onto others, though. Your gift for projection continues to shine on–and amuse me greatly.

  We’re not “forcing” a woman…just doing what’s best for both Baby and Mommy.

  Quite the nanny state you dream about, Jeremiah. I thought you wingnuts hated that. But I suppose expecting any sort of consistency from you is my mistake.

• 78. Mark Noonan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 12:23 am

  Tract,

  Ah, insults - the best way to debate, huh?

  If murder isn’t the taking of innocent human life, then what is it?

  If the life in the womb isn’t human, then what is it?

  You just think on those questions for a while…

• 79. Tractatus  |  November 27th, 2007 at 1:55 am

  If the life in the womb isn’t human, then what is it?

  A zygote. Consult a dictionary if you’re still confused.

• 80. Mark Noonan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 2:03 am

  Tract,

  I said, “think on those questions for a while”…so, get thinking. Come back in months with your thoughts on the matter.

  They will be different than they are today, if you really think about it.

• 81. Tractatus  |  November 27th, 2007 at 1:37 pm

  I said, “think on those questions for a while”…so, get thinking. Come back in months with your thoughts on the matter.
  

  I have thought about it. That’s part of the reason I was able to answer your question so easily.

  So…get thinking, Mark. Your thoughts will be different than they are today if you really think about it.

• 82. AAR  |  November 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pm

  Tract,

  You didn’t answer anything!!!!!

  AAR

• 83. free&hellip  |  December 5th, 2007 at 3:36 am

  hello

  wonderful

• 84. Power Of Law Forms&hellip  |  December 5th, 2007 at 6:18 pm

  Power Of Law Forms

  I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting

• 85. western union instant mon&hellip  |  December 6th, 2007 at 2:46 pm

  western union instant money

  Payday Loans and Cash Advances. We specialize in payday loans and cash advances with no credit checks.

• 86. Muscle And Fitness&hellip  |  December 7th, 2007 at 2:29 am

  Muscle And Fitness

  I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting

• 87. Local Jobs Guide&hellip  |  December 8th, 2007 at 4:28 am

  Local Jobs Guide

  I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting

• 88. payday loan illinois&hellip  |  January 14th, 2008 at 3:35 am

  payday loan illinois

  The best source for quick cash advance and payday loans online.

• 89. Jack&hellip  |  February 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am

  Jack

  Thanks, this is good stuff. You are spot on.

• 90. Teen Girls Teen Titans Ra&hellip  |  February 27th, 2008 at 3:26 am

  Teen Girls Teen Titans Raven Tiffany Teen

  I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

• 91. High-quality Maine Payday&hellip  |  March 4th, 2008 at 4:15 am

  High-quality Maine Payday Advance

  This article sounds well, but how everything is related together?

• 92. Incest Confessions&hellip  |  March 16th, 2008 at 9:38 am

  Incest Confessions

  came across our site doing some research coming from this other domain but as I can see it has nothing to do with “incest”, guess its a mistake