| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks & Islam |
| Americans Want Tough Interrogations |
| 2005-11-13 |
| Poll: Americans Back Tough Interrogations By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Americans support U.S. interrogators doing "whatever it takes" to get information from terrorist suspects who might be planning attacks against U.S. interests. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows 55 percent of those surveyed support the current policy that allows tough interrogation tactics - while just 30 percent say that techniques now being employed by U.S. intelligence go too far. "They don't want to know what the specifics are," NBC's Andrea Mitchell said Sunday while discussing the previously unreported survey. "They agree with whatever it takes." The finding would be a boost for Vice President Dick Cheney, whose been under fire from the press for opposing Sen. John McCain's proposal to reign in U.S. interrogators. One technique, waterboarding - which has been decried as "torture" by critics - was used on 9/11 operations chief Khalid Sheik Mohammed. The tactic yielded "rich and important information about terrorist operations" - according to the New York Times. |
| Posted by:Captain America |
| #14 UE...I don't think we disagree. The problem is that we aren't being real in our discussions re: torture because we are too bogged down in red ink, so to speak. There are times when it is appropriate but we don't want to blur the lines between when it would be moderately helpful - but not humane. My point is that we can't even have a serious discussion due to the all the shrieking going on in the background. Hey...can I claim a human rights violation for having to endure the torture of idiocy from the left? |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-13 20:36 |
| #13 excellent point, CS. Thanks. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-13 20:31 |
| #12 2b, get serious. The level of torture I will sanction is proportional to the lives to be saved as a result of gaining the informaiton. If we're talking a six year old kid who's stolen twinkies from Safeway, I doubt I'd sanction a threat other than to tell his parents. If we're talking the terrorist who knows the location of the nuke in NY that will go off in 6 hours, there's nothing you can't do, except kill him. Now where we are in between is the relevant question. |
| Posted by: Unogum Elmavirong8971 2005-11-13 20:28 |
| #11 2b Few people enjoy torturing people ands I am not one of them. However, if we just caught a big fish in the WOT and he wasn't being cooperative, I wouldn't complain if we coaxed him along. Contrary to the propaganda, you will tell all under torture. Ask the many veterans who were broken by North Vietnam, it's only a matter of time and pain. And yes they broke them all including John McCain. No shame there, just a fact of life. Hopefuylly he (and the other idiots) will stop playing attention whore. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-11-13 20:27 |
| #10 Sorry for the typos. Got to cool down. *deep breath* |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-11-13 20:23 |
| #9 By and large, the people making the most hay about our so-called torture of terrorists fit into the classification of RFSP. Having said that, it is my considered opinion that we should not make torture a policy, but rather make a policy to use what ever effectice means possible to extract the maximum useful intelligence from these terrorists when we catch them. After that goal has been achieved, then the terrorists should be placed before a military tribunal, sentence pronounced upon them, and executed. Prison breaks, like those recently in Bagram, should not be happening. We need to remember our objectives: Get the intel to prevent other 9-11s and dispose of the trash. This is not sadism, this is war. The terrorists give no quarter, and neigher should we. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-11-13 20:22 |
| #8 do ask, not tell. heheh. In all honesty, I against true physical torture with very few exceptions. I'm not talking a little discomfort or red ink. I'm talking the rack, the hook, and places car batteries should not go. And I think most other rantburgers - if asked the right questions - would admit that as well. Once again, the handwringers work against their own cause. By dumbing down the meaning of terror to mean not wearing gloves when touching a Koran or not providing the proper plumpness to pillows, then we all just get immune to what true torture really implies. Why is it that screams of torure always seem the loudest from the Humane Rights Groups Against Americans and Jews(TM) Yet they are sadly silent as most of the world's security services utilize the practice of torture just for kicks. Nobody - except wierd cruel people - like the idea of torture. But the handwringer's demand that nothing but saying "pretty please" can be done to obtain information from stone, cold mass murderers - has actually made it so that the real discussion about when to use torture and how much - has little meaning. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-13 20:12 |
| #7 Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally wrong with being concerned with a handful of people compared to millions? It's just you. While far from a perfect analogy, the difference is the difference between having a gun in your drawer at home and taking that gun out and shooting someone with it. For the world's leading target (i.e., the United States) having broad capabilities is a matter of survival, actually using those capabilities should be done reluctantly. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-11-13 20:02 |
| #6 The American people see through what is going on. I suspect they would favor abrogation of the Geneva convention also.It has never protected and American soldier except in German and Italian prison camps. And it is not at all clear that it was the convention that protected them. |
| Posted by: Fleatle Thromonter6140 2005-11-13 18:46 |
| #5 Pardon me. I have a conceptual problem here. The United States maintains the capability to erase off the face of the earth most any country in this world. Now Russia and China are a bit large, but certainly a big hurt on either. That's a hell of lot of killing and destruction. Yet, no one is seriously talking about giving up, outlawing the ability. On the other hand, we have people whining and crying over tearing someone's finger nails out. Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally wrong with being concerned with a handful of people compared to millions? Either both situations are unacceptable or someone is missing a screw [and I don't mean the one for the thumbs]. |
| Posted by: Angatch Omump4656 2005-11-13 18:44 |
| #4 One technique, waterboarding - which has been decried as "torture" by critics - was used on 9/11 operations chief Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Heavens to mergatroid! Do you mean to say that a handful of psychotic mass murderers who forever changed the world's political landscape on 9-11 are now experiencing some extreme discomfort as a result of their having plotted this and many other atrocities? Will wonders never cease. Personally, I don't much like the idea of government sponsored torture. I like the idea of a nuclear terrorist attack upon our nation (something all of these psychos have wet dreams about) even less. When weighing one against the other, guess which side of the equation wins out? By declaring their willingness to participate in atrocities that far exceed the limits of most human imagination, these sh!theads place themselves outside the boundaries of deserving anything remotely approaching humane treatment. Go ahead and plot your wretched rivers of bloodletting. Just remember that, somewhere, there's a car battery with your name on it. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-11-13 18:35 |
| #3 "whatever it takes" plus "They don't want to know what the specifics are" This suggests a new sort of policy: Do "ask", don't tell. Melike. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-13 18:34 |
| #2 A 2:1 margin? Ouch. For the hand-wringers, that's gotta hurt. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-11-13 18:32 |
| #1 dya hear that President McCain? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-13 18:12 |