In the name of national security, the United States announces the cauterization of its information systems from the global net. The Euasian Coaltion follows suit.
wtf "liberal" means in u.s? liberal like against a country controlled by the military and corporations? btw where are the cases of u.s soldiers that murder other soldiers because they are muslim, i think there's a cover up there.
@Cross3061980 You mean the liberals at CodePink protesting against Marines? Or the Jesse MacBeth thing? How about Dick Durbin calling American soldiers Nazis?
i know exactly why he brought up nbc news and then dismissed them. He has done this to give a general comment about the media and to say that 'they ' have nothing to do with crimes as a collective. Very easy to see. Furthermore, O'reilly supports the current government and does not see the 'torture of muslims' to be a problem as he never talks about the issues regarding this, so he flips it on people who are against the torture, like NBC, like real people, like muslims. wow, he's so transparent
ok the media is a little to blame, but overall the shooter is the one who committed the crime and you cant blame the media they didnt force him to do anything
and dont get me wrong im not a FOX or O'Reily fan, in fact I Hate Both
but people need to just stop putting blame on others, its no different than blaming Music, and Video Games for violence in this country
Holy shit, peope are actually defending George Bush?!?!? You sick fucks, going around saying "If you were Bush, you would have done the same thing on 9/11..." Yeah, i would have done the same thing, I would have declared war...WITH THE CORRECT FUCKING COUNTRY!!! And don't you think it's weird as to how the air force was down on that day on 9/11, at that EXACT time? Bush and his cock suckin' and lovin' administration did it for oil, and for their own benefits, and it cost INNOCENT AMERICAN LIVES!
I'm from Australia and i have a question for you American blokes, how the fuck can you put up with this O'Reilly's fuckwit. He contradicts himself like 20 times and he's clearly racist to people inside america and outside, not to mention how rude he is and how he doesnt have any discussion manners.
lol thanks for the repley, its just difficult to understand why this guy isn't getting pumped every time he walks out into the street, he needs to get fucking belted so he realizes that people are sick of his shit.
alot of america doesnt like him. he helped up vote for obama though. the more he bashed obama, the more true america wanted him as ppresident. but it wasnt just oreiley, there were alot of right wingers on FOX news that contributed
ROFLMAO. People check this out! Creep5 is railing against sex and the sexy media so check out his profile. ALL his subscriptions are young girls, shaking it and talking about breasts and young Korean girls licking lolipops (I´m sure it´s just research). I hope people can see it before he changes it.
He´s definitely a republican. Down like a lead balloon.
I know what you're going to say. "What about the righties who get caught in sex scandals?" Yeah. But the hypocrisy there doesn't have the widespread effect on our culture that the last 40+ years of liberals shoving THEIR social values down our collective throats through TV, music, movies, books etc...have.
Creep5, I'm sorry but I only have a few words for your uneducated ass. YOU'RE AN IDIOT. Too many words for you to understand? Don't worry, I can simplify it. Creep5=Idiot :) Have a nice day.
Of course liberals encourage the enemy. They did the same in Vietnam. You'll never get them to admit it though. Just like you'll never get them to admit that their failed social experiments have been causing crime, death and misery for the last 40+ years.
Keeping the underclass in poverty and playing the race/class card to get votes. The War On Poverty began over 40 years ago and has cost how many trillion dollars? There are still poor people. Must mean the war is failing. Where's the exit strategy? Maybe it's time to use a different approach like say, preaching education and personal responsibility. Or how about returning the concept of "shame" to our society?
Dumbass. What War on Poverty? The War on Poverty legislation was introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson as a response to a high national poverty rate. This led Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act. However, after the 60's, support for the concept of a War on Poverty waned, and in the 80's and 90's an ideological shift to fuck poor people caused Bill Clinton to pass the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which ultimately killed the War. You are one dumb motherfucker.
And what are the things that have ripped apart the social fabric of our nation? Glorifying drugs/indiscriminate sex and whatever feels good to you...do it. They sure as hell weren't espoused by republicans.
How have those things "ripped apart the social fabric of our nation?" All liberals have suggested is that certain drugs, such as marijuana (which is less harmful than tobacco, by the way), be legalized and regulated. Also, why is indiscriminate sex a bad thing? If two consenting people have sex, then they're perfectly within their rights to do so in a free society, right? Then, in a free society, why shouldn't someone be able to do what ever feels good, as long as it isn't harmful to others?
Hmmm. Can't see the forest for the trees, eh? The sexual revolution (pushed by libs in the 60s and 70s) brought us AIDS and a massive increase in unwed mothers. Seeing how our tax dollars go by the millions for AIDS research and treatment, God only knows how many entitlement programs for "babymama's and single mothers" etc...it certainly makes sense to point that out.
LOL. It´s like you´re 90 years old and you just discovered that people have sex (back in my day...)
It just came out that states (especially Alabama) that are more consevative (religious) are the ones that have the highest teen pregnancy. Here´s a forest of trees for you: the entire Bible Belt is full of teen mothers. Like we didn´t see that coming.
Ummm, why is there a red bar on top of video that says "Invalid argument." Are they talking about TYT or O'reily? Or is this some sort of Youtube hacker or something? This is really wierd, usually the red bar indicates wether a video has been pulled from YouTube! What is going on here?
Bill O Reilly is dumb as shit. How the hell did he get a show. When you report the news its not suppose to be a competition between the Right and Left-wing--it's suppose to be about the news. Every time I listen to Bill he got something negative to say about Obama or someone on the right. Now he defends waterboarding.
Can someone tell me what American laws that prohibits "torture" The Geneva convention indeed does perscribe actions against non uniformed combatants-but we never ratified that part of the treaty. Many will say we violated "international laws" but other then the Geneva convention, no one can actually name these international laws. would like to see which parts of American law we violated.
Yes it's 53 thousand people that have to find this site. They can't just turn on the t.v and watch one of the few only local news channels. The Young Turks are competing with all the big name and small name companies. getting 53K subscribers on Youtube is quite an accomplishment.
The people who watch Fox News on a regular basis are too lazy, cheap, or computer illiterate to handle searching for facts.
Rush Limbaugh isn't smart enough to know that you can use control F on a PDF. Not very smart.
the liberals are like the nazi party they say "kill our soldiers kill conservatives just dont let them trace it back to us" and thats pretty disgusting but i guess liberals love dark morals and genocidal policies
Bill is a fucking idiot. Torture was authorized at the highest levels of our government, who unfortunately, represent our country whether we like it or not. Personally, I don't think either him or any network is responsible for what a few crazy individuals have done however.
Look,OReilly used bad judgment personalizing attacking Tiller ;he should have gone after the legality of the process; but he has as much right doing as many shows on partial birth abortion as he wants;that's Freedom of Speech,period.he deserves some criticism,but as usual,there's a lot of piling on going on,;how many times has Olbermann called Bush and Cheney fascists?;that ridiculous,stupid,absurd characterization could have gotten them killed already;if they do get shot,is it Keith's fault?
So by trying to blame the death of Pvt. Long on MSNBC, isn't Bill-O admitting he's culpable in Dr. Tiller's death? LOL, that jackass never learns to just STFU.
He was making a comparison. Ever heard of it?? It's called insisting on consistency. Point being, if he's responsible for Tiller, then so are people like those on MSNBC who say things just as bad if not worse about our military than anything O'Reilly said about Tiller responsible for the murder of Pvt. Long. In the inverse, if MSNBC and their types bear no responsibility for Long, then NEITHER DOES O'REILLY FOR TILLER!! Take your pick. But you don't get it both ways. THAT was his point.
So just because O'Reilly says we don't get it both ways that makes it so? LOL. There's no consistency because the two cases are very different. No one anywhere in the media called out these two young recruiters by name and location for months and agitated for their deaths by calling them baby killers, which is precisely what Bill-O did with Dr. Tiller.
No, actually LOGIC says you don't get it both ways. You need to learn the definition of agitating. It doesn't matter whether they fingered anyone by name--the mainstream media still said FAR more incendiary things about the military in general than O'Reilly EVER said about Tiller. And O'Reilly didn't IN ANY WAY call for Tiller's death, only for his prosecution and legal avenues to be taken to stop what he was doing. No different than those who call for Bush to be tried as a "war criminal"
This has nothing to do with what I want to believe--this has to do with simple logic and reason. If O'Reilly "incited" violence against Tiller then so did the mainstream media incite violence against our military and Bush. If the media is not responsible for doing so, then neither is O'Reilly. Sounds a lot like common sense.
Precisely how did I prove that? I have demonstrated myself capable of both many times over buddy, in the eyes of any objective individual, which you clearly are not.
I already told you, I conceded that point, and I don't care what you call it. Remember my theme line--call it Al for all I care. My simple point was which is more wrong--waterboarding a terrorist, whatever you call the practice, or lose a few thousand more innocents citizens? I know my answer, and that one's pretty damn logical too. But that's got nothing to do with your appalling double standard on what constitutes "incitement" and what you'll tolerate from some but not from others.
Your answer is not logical at all. It's based on fallacies imbibed from an administration that worked OT to legitimize the illegal acts it had already committed, and has since rallied public support for those illegal acts by playing the fear card and insisting there's some kind of debate on the subject.
Of course you avoid answering my question. "illegal acts" is a straw man if I've ever seen one. Laws can and MUST be broken if it is the only way to save lives, and every legitimate court of law in the land acknowledges these circumstances--they're called necessity defenses. And recognizing how the reality of the world sometimes works is NOT "playing the fear card." It's acknowledging that saving lives is sometimes a messy business, and sometimes you have to choose the lesser of the wrongs
Right, ADEAL. O'Reilly calls out Tiller by name and slanders him for 4 years, but when others in the media report the truth about the illegal acts Bush and some of our soldiers/contractors were committng, you don't see the difference. You even think the words "illegal acts" add up to a straw man and then excuse the illegality as "necessary". And you claim to be logical. I don't know what you care about but it certainly isn't this country.
What I care most about is saving innocent lives, whatever it takes to do so. Everything O'Reilly said about Tiller was true--it was no more "slander" than anything said about our military and Bush. But O'Reilly NEVER called for anyone to kill Tiller. But yes, if you believe someone is doing something wrong/illegal it IS your duty to call attention to it. I've said that NEITHER O'Reilly NOR the rest of the media are responsible for "inciting" any violence, but I'm consistent. You're not
Hey genius, all necessity defense are retroactive. When the necessity presents itself, you don't have time to go to court to get a waiver of the law. You have to do it, and then demonstrate that it was necessary, which we did in showing that standard "acceptable" interrogation was getting us NOWHERE with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
I meant to write "There is if you reach for legality retroactively and support it with lies." If your actions are honorable, you don't need to bring lawyers in later and lie about the results of your illegal acts to justify them. Which is precisely what Bush and Cheney did.
Our legal system still insists on making the necessity defense official so that it ISN'T used when it doesn't actually apply. No "lies" about the results. It has been acknowledged even by Obama's intelligence director, Dennis Blair, that we DID get life-saving intelligence from the waterboarding. He speculates that we could have gotten that information some other way, and if we can, great. But when we can't, our back up plan better not be letting our citizens die, which you're advocating
Straw man. I advocate following the law whenever possible instead of breaking it to get the desired results and then going back to cover it up.
If anyone saved "thousands of lives" it was Zaeni Zakaria, the pilot recruited by Hambali to carry out the L.A. Library Tower attack, who turned himself in to Malaysian authorities in Dec 2002 after deciding he wasn't ready to die for Islam.
I do too. The key phrase here is "whenever possible." It's not always possible. When the "desired results" are saving thousands of lives, that's one time that those results are important enough to achieve them by any means necessary. And no, the plan didn't end with one person turning himself in--others still intended to take the lead. The final nail in the coffin of that plot wasn't driven until the summer of 2003--several months AFTER the capture of KSM. Hmmmm.........
That wasn't done through interrogation at all. That was done through documents found of some early stage meetings (not involving 9/11) between Saddam's henchmen and some Al-Qaida officials. The meetings admittedly didn't get very far, but the limited links were documented, not obtained through interrogations at all.
But the primary sources were the documents from the meetings. They may have gotten some bad intelligence from a few interrogations, but independently of any of that information, we still had documented evidence of these early stage meetings. Again, I acknowledge that they didn't get very far, but that's not the point. You combine that with the WMD intel, there's not much else you can do.
If anyone can be said to have "saved thousands of lives" it was Zaeni Zakaria, the pilot recruited by Hambali to carry out the L.A. Library Tower attack, who turned himself in to Malaysian authorities in Dec 2002 because he didn't want to die for Islam. The plan ended there.
That is precisely what the necessity defense does. It makes normally illegal acts retroactively legal when it is shown that lives were on the line if that law was not broken.
Maybe, but there are no lies here. Once again, even Blair acknowledges the actionable intelligence we got from such interrogations, and he's still generally opposed to using them, but that's because he's going on the assumption that we could have gotten that same information in other ways. So he'd better be willing to go back to those methods if and when these "other ways" he speaks of fail. At that point, it does indeed come down to which is LESS wrong.
Not TONY Blair, genius, DENNIS Blair--Obama's director of National Intelligence. Some scholar you are!! No "lies" here at all. We got the info that allowed us to put the final nail in the coffin of the Library Tower plot, as well as the info that helped us break up the Brooklyn Bridge plot. Again, testimony of those who witnessed it with their own eyes.
"put the final nail in the coffin of the Library Tower plot", what a load of BS you spout. It's a waste of time to argue with you, you'll refuse to accept any evidence that disproves your opinion every time. That isn't logical. That's being a coward.
The stuff about not putting the final nail in the coffin of that plot until several months after the capture of KSM comes from a BBC article, buster. Certainly no Bush administration lapdog. And even with somewhat ambiguous information about the Library Tower plot, there's still the small detail of the Brooklyn Bridge plot that was thwarted through the KSM interrogations.
Who cares who said it? It's BS, as was the Brooklyn Bridge "blowtorch" plot. Faris knew he'd never get away with it with all the security on NY bridges after 9/11, that's why he told his higher ups he was abandoning the idea six months before KSM gave us his name. AND we already knew about the plot through wiretapping.
I don't have an issue with arresting these people. I take issue with Bush & Cheney LYING about saving lives to justify torture.
Not "BS" at all, and it has been corroborated by many sources within the CIA. That added security on the Brooklyn Bridge was only AFTER we picked up intercepts through the wiretaps. But at that point we didn't know WHO was planning to do it--only when KSM fingered Faris did we discover it. And again, he had not "abandoned" the plot, he had simply put it on hold until the weather was not so hot. So once again, no lies at all, and even Dennis Blair has acknowledged that.
Wrong again. "The weather is too hot" was code for calling off the plot. Faris checked the bridge's structure and security and determined it was unlikely to succeed. He sent that phrase in an email to one of KSM's associates in winter 2003.
Use logic.
Again, I have no problem with arresting terrorists. I have a problem with lying to justify torture. These plots had already been abandoned when KSM was waterboarded, contradicting the heroic claims of the Bush admin and the OLC memos.
That is not what they discovered. The plan was still in the works. The plan was simply put off. There has been conflicting testimony about whether the plot would have worked and plenty of experts have said it would have. So you've avoided my question yet again.
I know the testimony I've discovered, I've heard it on various news shows (and not all on Fox News either) and in articles from those with the direct first-hand experience. I didn't expect that nuts like you would be denying all of it, so I didn't take note of the name and date of the article or show. But that doesn't change what was in it, and if you want to continue lying to yourself, that's no skin off my nose.
You act as if you aren't right this minute on the internet, where resides the greatest collection of information ever known to man. I guess you aren't capable of informing yourself and reaching your OWN conclusions, rather than having them handed to you. Apparently having an opinion is more important to you than having the knowledge to actually back it up.
I'm finished with you, ADEAL. You aren't interested in the truth at all, just the version you believe in. Typical.
I HAVE informed myself, but in order to do so, you have to know what the REAL FACTS ARE!!!! They weren't "handed to me"--I actively sought them out. But I already know what I have discovered, I'm not going to look forward to it again because you can't acknowledge the facts. I have the knowledge to back it up--that, sir, IS truth. What I "believe in" is protecting our citizens' lives at all costs. Apparently you do not. Because you have avoided my question now for the SEVENTH time.
Unlike you, I'm ALWAYS researching. I'm ALWAYS prepared to take new info on board and weigh it against what I already know. I've just revisited this whole KSM thing and am even MORE convinced that the Bush admin lied to justify torture.
I am also always researching, and I believe what is staring me right full in the face. I have heard NO refuting of what the facts were about the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed situation from ANYONE who was actually there when it happened, and that's who I'm going to listen to. Because everything else is nothing but wild speculation.
My mistake, read that as Tony Blair, not Dennis Blair. He explained his opinion - that nothing we got by torture couldn't have been gotten via other means, and that torture is bad for our national security.
And THAT, sir is pure speculation, that we could have gotten it via other means. I've said a thousand times if I've said it once, I'm not in any way opposed to getting information through these "other means" Blair speaks of. I'm simply asking the man in whose hands the safety of 300 million people lies what, pray tell, he intends to do in the cases where these "other means" fail to yield ANY actionable intelligence, and the answer better not be we'll have to let them die rather than waterboard
No, it's not. That refers to previous verified facts. Blair's speculation about how else we could have gotten the information deals in the hypothetical. Blair acknowledges that we prevented attacks--he just says we could have done so without using such methods. Fine, but what about when we can't? You continue to avoid answering that question.
Not when you've gotten no information from any other method. What you get from waterboarding may not always be reliable, but clearly there are cases where it has been, and once you've exhausted everything else, it is your only chance to save those lives. I never said use it in place of supposedly more reliable methods. I said use it when those other methods fail. It's that, or resign yourself to allowing thousands of innocent to die. Which do you choose??? ANSWER THAT QUESTION!!!!!!
Not according to those who interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Pardon me for taking their word over yours. Furthermore, even if you DO believe it's a false choice, when you are charged with the protection of 300 million people, you need to be ready for circumstances that you may truly believe will never present themselves--plenty of times people have had to make choices that they previously considered to be "false" So I will ask again, ANSWER MY QUESTION or you're not worth engaging with
I asked what you do when all of the other methods considered "acceptable" have all failed?? You claim it to be a "false choice." What you are saying here, is that there are methods that are 100% (read that again, 100%--one more time 100%) effective at getting information out of someone who is withholding it. You better corroborate that with direct testimony showing that there are methods that have NEVER (repeat) NEVER failed. Because nothing less is acceptable when it comes to protecting us
So you tell me, under those circumstances, where every "acceptable" method has been exhausted and yielded absolutely NOTHING, how what I asked you is a "false choice" in that case???? I'd LOVE to hear you finagle your way out of that one.
No finagling required, just more logic. As any professional interrogator worth his salt will tell you, that situation - knowing a major attack is imminent AND knowing 100% you have someone connected to it in custody but they're refusing to talk - has never arisen and is unlikely to.
Never seen "24" in my life, buddy--I'm not using that. I'm using the first hand testimony of those who dealt specifically with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, nothing more, nothing less. That is PRECISELY what happened in that case. So don't bother to answer me any more if you don't intend to answer the question I've asked you at least five times now.
I have answered, you just aren't listening as usual. Torture is reckless and produces unreliable intel. That's why your scenario is bs. There is NEVER a time to use torture.
You claim to be logical, yet when presented with evidence to the contrary of your belief about what happened with KSM, you still insist you're right based on what those involved said - despite their obvious conflict of interest.
You most certainly did NOT answer, so I'll ask the question for the SIXTH time. WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THE METHODS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO PRODUCE RELIABLE INTELLIGENCE PRODUCE NOTHING????? I've seen plenty of evidence from those with the ACTUAL FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of the situation that this is EXACTLY what happened with KSM, and again, you can't acknowledge it that's your own problem.
How simple are you? GOOD OLD-FASHIONED DETECTIVE WORK. It can be done in a timely fashion and is far more accurate and reliable than intel from torture.
The people who have ACTUAL FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of what happened with KSM are conflicted in that they committed a CRIME and will say whatever it takes to keep from being prosecuted. Why do you think the CIA destroyed its interrogation tapes/videos after a court order NOT to, and demanded legal cover from Bush back in 2002? HUH?
And I'm not against "good old-fashioned detective work." BUT IT IS NOT 100% EFFECTIVE!!!! And NOTHING less than that is acceptable when it comes to protecting this country and its citizens. WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN "GOOD OLD-FASHIONED DETECTIVE WORK GETS YOU NOTHING?????!!!!!!!!! That DOES sometimes happen!!!!! Demonstrating a "motive" to lie does not prove that one is lying, and that has NEVER been shown, at least not by anyone who was actually there!!
Precisely. And with that acknowledgment, you admit that there will be times where you get NOTHING from the "acceptable" techniques. Now I didn't say waterboarding is 100% effective either, but the point is, unless there was something else that IS 100% effective, we must NEVER take ANYTHING off the table that has EVEN ONE TIME saved lives. Because if we do--if we get nothing from the acceptable methods and decide that's as far as we'll go, and thousands more die, that blood is on OUR hands
Why destroy the tapes? Probably so Al-Qaida couldn't train its operatives to resist each and every technique laid out in plain detail in those tapes. And maybe because they knew this bullshit would start happening and they would have to distract valuable time and energy to this witch hunt that should be used to SAVE LIVES!!!!!
the law of torture in the U.S. specifically states that torture is when u inflict harm to someone and that harm causes a life injury to that person. it does not list examples of what is torture. the water boarding of the terrorists never led to any lifetime injuries. plus there was a doctor standing right there the whole time while they were doing it. we didnt violate any federal or int'l laws. the geneva conventions dont apply to Al Qaeda bc theyre not a country. i know the truth hurts huh
It's all been said a thousand times. Facts don't move you, neither does logic. You torture apologists aren't interested in a thing that doesn't agree with your unfounded opinions. Well, I've got better ways to waste the rest of my life than to indefinitely indulge your insufferable, if well-rounded, stupidities.
I don't know who that's directed at, me or him--but they're not "torture apologists"--they're people who have FIRST-HAND knowledge of what we're talking about, unlike you and those acting all righteous about the comfort level of terrorists. One more time, demonstration that someone may have motive to lie does not prove that they actually ARE lying. And those who have first-hand knowledge of the situation with KSM have NEVER been shown to be lying. Until they are, what they say stands.
no i think its cuz u know the Bush Admin didnt break any laws and thats what kills u. Why do u think Obama or Holder isnt even talking about it anymore? they know they didnt break any laws so they cant prosecute anybody. it all kinda died away and theyre not as loud about it anymore as they were before. ppl like u solely want to prosecute Bush just bc hes a republican and it would further progress your agenda. No President should have to go through this stuff Republican or Democrat.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
like i said, the waterboarding of these terrorists NEVER lead to any long term injuries so technically it isnt torture according to the law. those techniques were used to protect our country from further attack. ppl like u want all these terrorists to have rights and u wanna put em in a five star hotel. u guys forget that we are at WAR and u do whatever it takes to win that war. we were attacked on our soil and over 3,000 Americans died. u guys have a short memory.
The point of most torture is to not kill your victim. In order for this to happen, logically and necessarily you would want to keep your victim alive a long as possible, and therefore not want to injure them per sei, but mearly inflict pain.
If I shock your balls for 100 continuous hours, using voltage ranging between 30-70 volts, there would not be any long term injuries so technically it isn't torture, right? You wouldn't mind letting this happen to you, correct?
All i am saying is that u cannot condemn Pres Bush for doing what he did to protect this country. As the Pres of the U.S. that is his number 1 job. As far as im concerned i do not care if we torture to protect innocent American lives They would do 10x's worse to us if they could. I guarantee u if u were Pres when 9/11 happened then u would have done the exact same thing to prevent this from happening again. and dont ever say im politicizin 9/11 i love my country and would nvr politicze nat'l sec
When OReilly comes on, I switch to Fox BUSINESS News and watch Judge Andrew Napolitano on "Freedom Watch." I get the news of the day and learn about the Constitution! What a deal!
The original purpose of torture was to get a person to admit to a crime. It's not a useful interrogation technique, as it mostly provides inaccurate information.
Also regardless of the physical aspect, torture has long term effects on a persons mental stability.
That said there hasn't been any evidence which states that water boarding doesn't have any ill effects, such as what it does do to the respiratory system. So it's probably still technically torture.
those are terrorists who do not value human rights and will kill without question. we are in a war, this isnt a police matter. u do what it takes to win that war especially if it means to torture to save american lives. i dont believe we should torture for no reason. i do believe however u cant rule torture out to save American lives. the obama admin is treating the war on terror as police matter. they dont even use the words terror or war. they wanna put these ppl n civilian courts.
Well I would argue that torture is never the best method of interrogation, and using it actually puts lives at risk.
If you wish to validate your argument, state a scenario were torture would be more effective than a lie detector, a psycho-active agent or building up trust (the method preferred by professional interrogators).
If you can not, we must conclude that we must not torture for security reasons.
"those are terrorists who do not value human rights and will kill without question."
What proof can you and the US govt. have presented so far to prove that these detainees are in fact terrorists? 5 yrs have passed, and the US govt. has not been able to find any proof to justify their actions (show me one physical proof). Therefore how do you know that these people are actually involved with 9/11 or any other terrorist activities? You don't and thats why 500 of them have already been released.
a defense dept poll showed that approx 14% of the released terrorists have returned to the battle field. Plus, we only waterboarded 3 CONVICTED terrorists. So dont try and paint the U.S. as a nation who tortures people just for the hell of it. Its sad to see that anybody would want to condemn there govt for protecting them. People like you dont care about this country, all u care about is trying to make this country look bad. The U.S. is not a torture nation like ur portraying it as
if everyone wants to go back to the Clinton era where we had the first attack on the wtc n '93, then the east africa embassy bombings in '98, then the USS Cole bombings in 2000 then u r going to get alot of ppl killed. we treated those terrorists acts as a police matter and not as an act of war. then when sept 11 happened Bush said enough this is an act of war. there has not been ONE attack on american soil since sept 11 bc of what Bush did. he succeeded in protecting this country unlike Clinton
Anthrax attacks happened only days after september 11th, so your just completely wrong. Besides, who was commander in chief on september 11th? It was Bush's responsibility to protect you, and to make sure the defence works, to which he failed.
the attacks that happened under Clinton lead up to the sept 11th attacks. if Clinton would have been tougher, it wouldnt have happened. having said that, it was Bush's responsibility to keep us safe and he let sept 11th happen on his watch. but Bush treated it differently than what Clinton did. Bush did what no other President did before him and cracked down on Al Quaeda and the Taliban and prevented dozens of attacks on American soil including an attack on the brooklyn bridge and los angeles
i dont know for sure, but i ASSUME your talking about some conspiracy theory that some rich ppl are really in control of the country or something. i dont know why u would say that kissinger or robert gates are the ones who REALLY have power. correct me if im wrong
Well you assume completely wrong, in fact you sound rather confused and incoherent. Brezinski, Kissinger, Gates et al- have been involved in nearly every aspect of American geopolitics for a long time, even to this day. They have been advisors to every one of your presidents at least as far back as JFK.
To deny they have a large influence over policy is just comically naive and somewhat ignorant.
so what r u trying to say that Bill Gates, Kissinger etc were responsible for the 1993, 1998, 2000, and 2001 attacks? i think u dont know what u r talking about.
you knew damn well that i meant robert gates, but instead of answering the question u chose to avoid it. normally people who dont have facts to support there answers do that, people like you
First, all i can say is you have to stop watching fox news, you're leaving facts completely out of your argument. Fact of the matter is Clinton tried to go after Osama and the republican congress stopped him. See he did this weird thing called following the law and trying to get things done correctly. I understand that's a foreign concept for someone so far up bush's ass
People who were tortured by us during this war DID die. That's a fact. People we tortured have become incontinent and helpless. That's a fact. Most of the people we tortured turned out to be civilians, also a fact. Have fun in your delusional world where you will now just say that's all liberal propaganda and that you're the only one who is right in this situation.
we only used enhanced interrogation techniques on 3 detainees who are known and convicted terrorists. THATS THE FACTS BUDDY STOP PUTTING YOUR LIBERAL SPIN ON IT. And i dont know if that other comment was directed at me but i can tell u that i dont like Bush just as much as u do. I dont like either party, im what u call an INDEPENDENT. I follow the Constitution not Political Parties that u probably do. And i dont follow the far left propaganda that u obviously take as facts.
Obama did not keep his promise: the troops are STILL in Iraq, and he said he will leave 50,000 in there, plus the 16 permenent bases! Pelosi last year used the excuse that congress alone couldnt bring the troops home because of a republican president.
What's her excuse now?
The liberals LIED to the nation, and will lose power as a result. Obama is HORRIBLE as president, he plunged us into debt we cant even imagine..watch what happens to our dollar when the inflation hits, Obama = Bush.
How can he be a bad president? He has just gone over his 100th day!!!!!! And how could you even start to talk about a debt HE has put us in? That doesnt even make sense.
Obama is bad. He gives billions in bailout to wall street firms and banks instead of letting them bankrupt which cleanses the system. He gives billions to the car companies, and they bankrupt anyway! He wasted trillions of taxpayers dollars that we dont even have. Where are those shovel ready jobs?
Let's not forget Obama's broken promises on the war.
He INCREASED troop levels in Afghanastan and keeping 50,000 in Iraq indefenatly, and keeping our bases there, angering Muslims. Obama LIED
About what you said about inceasing troop levels in Afghanistan. THAT WAS OBAMA'S PLAN IN THE FIRST PLACE, you know why because al-qaeda is in Afghanistan and by going there we actually get to get back at the people who ACTUALLY ATTACKED US ON 9/11. And by the way Obama did keep his promise about getting us out of Iraq which we should not have been there in the first place. You're right about the 50,000 but come 2011 they will leave too.
Firstly, Obama says after 2011 he we KEEP troops in Iraq...as "non combatants" which makes no sense. They will defend the 16 permenent bases we have in Iraq. To Al Queda, this is still American troops in Iraq. So Obama isnt REALLY pulling us out of Iraq at all.
Second, Bin Laden is in Pakastan. Sending more troops to Afgan is not helping..in fact, it just impowerd Al Quieda to keep recruting. So Obama isnt doing any good in the mid east at all.
cmontesi123 :I saw on your homepage you like to insult everybody who disagrees with you ;here's a tip;when YOU use the word genius to insult someone,make sure you spell it correctly.
In the name of national security, the United States announces the cauterization of its information systems from the global net. The Euasian Coaltion follows suit.
TheFlameoftheWest 11 months ago
wtf "liberal" means in u.s? liberal like against a country controlled by the military and corporations? btw where are the cases of u.s soldiers that murder other soldiers because they are muslim, i think there's a cover up there.
crazy3d 1 year ago
So when will Keith Olbermann denounce the murder of that Arkansas recruiter? Oh wait. LIBERALS HATE AMERICAN SOLDIERS!
StoogeWatcher 1 year ago
@StoogeWatcher you have hard proof for that?
Cross3061980 1 year ago
@Cross3061980 You mean the liberals at CodePink protesting against Marines? Or the Jesse MacBeth thing? How about Dick Durbin calling American soldiers Nazis?
StoogeWatcher 1 year ago
then he attacks the murdered abortionist.
deafencryption 1 year ago
what the fuck! people get murdered and he uses it in his little gay battle with other news programs? fuck you bill o, FUCK YOU
deafencryption 1 year ago
i know exactly why he brought up nbc news and then dismissed them. He has done this to give a general comment about the media and to say that 'they ' have nothing to do with crimes as a collective. Very easy to see. Furthermore, O'reilly supports the current government and does not see the 'torture of muslims' to be a problem as he never talks about the issues regarding this, so he flips it on people who are against the torture, like NBC, like real people, like muslims. wow, he's so transparent
khazal12 1 year ago
ok the media is a little to blame, but overall the shooter is the one who committed the crime and you cant blame the media they didnt force him to do anything
and dont get me wrong im not a FOX or O'Reily fan, in fact I Hate Both
but people need to just stop putting blame on others, its no different than blaming Music, and Video Games for violence in this country
its ridiculous
dannypfan007 2 years ago
Well, liberals ARE anti-military. They rally against soldiers, call them Nazis, and support phonies like Jesse MacBeth.
StoogeWatcher 2 years ago
Holy shit, peope are actually defending George Bush?!?!? You sick fucks, going around saying "If you were Bush, you would have done the same thing on 9/11..." Yeah, i would have done the same thing, I would have declared war...WITH THE CORRECT FUCKING COUNTRY!!! And don't you think it's weird as to how the air force was down on that day on 9/11, at that EXACT time? Bush and his cock suckin' and lovin' administration did it for oil, and for their own benefits, and it cost INNOCENT AMERICAN LIVES!
Manbeast222 2 years ago 2
I'm from Australia and i have a question for you American blokes, how the fuck can you put up with this O'Reilly's fuckwit. He contradicts himself like 20 times and he's clearly racist to people inside america and outside, not to mention how rude he is and how he doesnt have any discussion manners.
silentgenocide1991 2 years ago 4
I'm trying to think of a good way to answer that.
Have you ever seen American WWF wrestling before?
You do realize some Americans think that shit is real wrestling, right?
Fox news programs appeal to the same sort of derelict.
The sad part is, those people usually tend to bread more. So don't expect things to improve anytime soon.
Sometimes I wish the healthcare death-panel rumors were true.... and will be based on IQ and/or severity of in-breeding.
MrAndocalrisian 2 years ago 4
lol thanks for the repley, its just difficult to understand why this guy isn't getting pumped every time he walks out into the street, he needs to get fucking belted so he realizes that people are sick of his shit.
silentgenocide1991 2 years ago
alot of america doesnt like him. he helped up vote for obama though. the more he bashed obama, the more true america wanted him as ppresident. but it wasnt just oreiley, there were alot of right wingers on FOX news that contributed
ryeboirox 2 years ago
Because we have a certain group that likes his kind of bullshit...they're called Republicans.
Manbeast222 2 years ago
LOOOOOOOOOL! what a lame comparison by Bill.
then he rips on NBC for being far left? LOL!
Lemonhead86 2 years ago
ROFLMAO. People check this out! Creep5 is railing against sex and the sexy media so check out his profile. ALL his subscriptions are young girls, shaking it and talking about breasts and young Korean girls licking lolipops (I´m sure it´s just research). I hope people can see it before he changes it.
He´s definitely a republican. Down like a lead balloon.
That creeped me out. I think I need a shower now.
oalemdemadrid 2 years ago 2
I know what you're going to say. "What about the righties who get caught in sex scandals?" Yeah. But the hypocrisy there doesn't have the widespread effect on our culture that the last 40+ years of liberals shoving THEIR social values down our collective throats through TV, music, movies, books etc...have.
Creep5 2 years ago
How have liberals been shoving their values down people's throats?
Elendil176 2 years ago
Creep5, I'm sorry but I only have a few words for your uneducated ass. YOU'RE AN IDIOT. Too many words for you to understand? Don't worry, I can simplify it. Creep5=Idiot :) Have a nice day.
Tdogg702 2 years ago
I'm not uneducated. Trust me. Go back to your comic books, son.
Creep5 2 years ago
Of course liberals encourage the enemy. They did the same in Vietnam. You'll never get them to admit it though. Just like you'll never get them to admit that their failed social experiments have been causing crime, death and misery for the last 40+ years.
Creep5 2 years ago
How so?
Elendil176 2 years ago
Keeping the underclass in poverty and playing the race/class card to get votes. The War On Poverty began over 40 years ago and has cost how many trillion dollars? There are still poor people. Must mean the war is failing. Where's the exit strategy? Maybe it's time to use a different approach like say, preaching education and personal responsibility. Or how about returning the concept of "shame" to our society?
Creep5 2 years ago
Dumbass. What War on Poverty? The War on Poverty legislation was introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson as a response to a high national poverty rate. This led Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act. However, after the 60's, support for the concept of a War on Poverty waned, and in the 80's and 90's an ideological shift to fuck poor people caused Bill Clinton to pass the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which ultimately killed the War. You are one dumb motherfucker.
Elendil176 2 years ago
By the way, keeping the lower class poor, and playing the race/class card is how the conservatives get votes.
Elendil176 2 years ago
And what are the things that have ripped apart the social fabric of our nation? Glorifying drugs/indiscriminate sex and whatever feels good to you...do it. They sure as hell weren't espoused by republicans.
Creep5 2 years ago
How have those things "ripped apart the social fabric of our nation?" All liberals have suggested is that certain drugs, such as marijuana (which is less harmful than tobacco, by the way), be legalized and regulated. Also, why is indiscriminate sex a bad thing? If two consenting people have sex, then they're perfectly within their rights to do so in a free society, right? Then, in a free society, why shouldn't someone be able to do what ever feels good, as long as it isn't harmful to others?
Elendil176 2 years ago
Hmmm. Can't see the forest for the trees, eh? The sexual revolution (pushed by libs in the 60s and 70s) brought us AIDS and a massive increase in unwed mothers. Seeing how our tax dollars go by the millions for AIDS research and treatment, God only knows how many entitlement programs for "babymama's and single mothers" etc...it certainly makes sense to point that out.
Creep5 2 years ago
LOL. It´s like you´re 90 years old and you just discovered that people have sex (back in my day...)
It just came out that states (especially Alabama) that are more consevative (religious) are the ones that have the highest teen pregnancy. Here´s a forest of trees for you: the entire Bible Belt is full of teen mothers. Like we didn´t see that coming.
Epic fail for you.
oalemdemadrid 2 years ago
@Creep5 But those single mother programs are good because it means they won't have abortions, right?
steelersguy74 10 months ago
Yes! sex has ripped us apart! I say whatever feels good do it like shoot up people.
It feels good for me to hate other races.
oalemdemadrid 2 years ago
"Fair & Balanced"
ROFL
smoochym 2 years ago
Ummm, why is there a red bar on top of video that says "Invalid argument." Are they talking about TYT or O'reily? Or is this some sort of Youtube hacker or something? This is really wierd, usually the red bar indicates wether a video has been pulled from YouTube! What is going on here?
thetotalvidwatcher 2 years ago
Bill O Reilly is dumb as shit. How the hell did he get a show. When you report the news its not suppose to be a competition between the Right and Left-wing--it's suppose to be about the news. Every time I listen to Bill he got something negative to say about Obama or someone on the right. Now he defends waterboarding.
Ramel34 2 years ago 3
Bill-O lives to promote hate in America. What a douche.
jkfromcincty 2 years ago 3
No bill you did by your blind supprt of war crimes, not msnbc who are bringing to light these war crimes.
SlowRealization 2 years ago
Lawls, MSNBC out of control? Look at yourself, Bill-O The clown :B
HomoCyborgZombie 2 years ago 10
When the Turks do it its responding.When someone else does it who the Turks disagree with they are provoking. This is hypocrisy at its finest.
xxdonaldqxx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Digital TV Transmission can send unheard low level frequencies.
Subsonic frequencies...irritate humans
to point of disorder and kaos also promotes extreme emotional stress. All without knowledge of origin.
You become unstable enough to project
anger, hate and other punishable crimes.
One outbreak is sufficient to invade your residence, dispatch and/or imprision you and your family.
I unpluged. No subs. No media.
Fresh air...breathe in.
2br2br2 2 years ago
Can someone tell me what American laws that prohibits "torture" The Geneva convention indeed does perscribe actions against non uniformed combatants-but we never ratified that part of the treaty. Many will say we violated "international laws" but other then the Geneva convention, no one can actually name these international laws. would like to see which parts of American law we violated.
daveme7 2 years ago
am I the only one who is tired of listening to all the agendas?
slwfreez 2 years ago
O'RILEY IS THE BIGGEST TOOL!
jdetuncq 2 years ago
Who is the owner of Fox News?
hamrite 2 years ago
O'Reilly is a Bigot, but I agree with his statement. NBC is a fraud and partial
D2spencer 2 years ago
is there an stats on left-wing killers?
styrofoamheart 2 years ago
Oh O'Reilly's the funniest guy
gush020 2 years ago
The Catcher in the Rye killed John Lennon! Release Mark Chapman!
Jodie foster shot Ronald Reagan! Release John Hinckley!
Olbermann = idiot desperate for ratings. Libs never blame the actual murderer.
Thats why Olbermanns ratings have fallen 5 straight months now. See tvbythenumbers websitte.
KRProds 2 years ago
J.D. Salinger is a god, fuck you.
Clembo 2 years ago
Oreilly is the fucking best ever!!
HE IS THE GREATEST!!!
Oreillyisthebest 2 years ago
Fuck off bill.
Superhumanattack 2 years ago 2
Bill O Reilly is an evil man and so are his IMPS!!~
dadreamzworld 2 years ago 2
Yes it's 53 thousand people that have to find this site. They can't just turn on the t.v and watch one of the few only local news channels. The Young Turks are competing with all the big name and small name companies. getting 53K subscribers on Youtube is quite an accomplishment.
The people who watch Fox News on a regular basis are too lazy, cheap, or computer illiterate to handle searching for facts.
Rush Limbaugh isn't smart enough to know that you can use control F on a PDF. Not very smart.
makaisenki 2 years ago
Projection.
xsabbathgamer 2 years ago
the liberals are like the nazi party they say "kill our soldiers kill conservatives just dont let them trace it back to us" and thats pretty disgusting but i guess liberals love dark morals and genocidal policies
jogeryjogo 2 years ago
oh really? where did you find that amazing quote then
yourself right?
xsabbathgamer 2 years ago
Bill is a fucking idiot. Torture was authorized at the highest levels of our government, who unfortunately, represent our country whether we like it or not. Personally, I don't think either him or any network is responsible for what a few crazy individuals have done however.
beretboy22 2 years ago 2
Look,OReilly used bad judgment personalizing attacking Tiller ;he should have gone after the legality of the process; but he has as much right doing as many shows on partial birth abortion as he wants;that's Freedom of Speech,period.he deserves some criticism,but as usual,there's a lot of piling on going on,;how many times has Olbermann called Bush and Cheney fascists?;that ridiculous,stupid,absurd characterization could have gotten them killed already;if they do get shot,is it Keith's fault?
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
Funny how ppl post half infomation makeing ppl thick it real, but others check your fasts and know your full of it.
If your offended then your guity
Magnumanxxl 2 years ago
So by trying to blame the death of Pvt. Long on MSNBC, isn't Bill-O admitting he's culpable in Dr. Tiller's death? LOL, that jackass never learns to just STFU.
ismeme 2 years ago
He was making a comparison. Ever heard of it?? It's called insisting on consistency. Point being, if he's responsible for Tiller, then so are people like those on MSNBC who say things just as bad if not worse about our military than anything O'Reilly said about Tiller responsible for the murder of Pvt. Long. In the inverse, if MSNBC and their types bear no responsibility for Long, then NEITHER DOES O'REILLY FOR TILLER!! Take your pick. But you don't get it both ways. THAT was his point.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
So just because O'Reilly says we don't get it both ways that makes it so? LOL. There's no consistency because the two cases are very different. No one anywhere in the media called out these two young recruiters by name and location for months and agitated for their deaths by calling them baby killers, which is precisely what Bill-O did with Dr. Tiller.
ismeme 2 years ago
No, actually LOGIC says you don't get it both ways. You need to learn the definition of agitating. It doesn't matter whether they fingered anyone by name--the mainstream media still said FAR more incendiary things about the military in general than O'Reilly EVER said about Tiller. And O'Reilly didn't IN ANY WAY call for Tiller's death, only for his prosecution and legal avenues to be taken to stop what he was doing. No different than those who call for Bush to be tried as a "war criminal"
ADEAL416 2 years ago
My experience with you is that you'll believe whatever you want to regardless of evidence to the contrary, ADEAL. Have a party.
ismeme 2 years ago
This has nothing to do with what I want to believe--this has to do with simple logic and reason. If O'Reilly "incited" violence against Tiller then so did the mainstream media incite violence against our military and Bush. If the media is not responsible for doing so, then neither is O'Reilly. Sounds a lot like common sense.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Simple logic and reason? I don't think you're capable of either since you've already proved you're incapable of discerning truth from fiction.
ismeme 2 years ago
Precisely how did I prove that? I have demonstrated myself capable of both many times over buddy, in the eyes of any objective individual, which you clearly are not.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
LOL - hint: waterboarding is torture.
ismeme 2 years ago
I already told you, I conceded that point, and I don't care what you call it. Remember my theme line--call it Al for all I care. My simple point was which is more wrong--waterboarding a terrorist, whatever you call the practice, or lose a few thousand more innocents citizens? I know my answer, and that one's pretty damn logical too. But that's got nothing to do with your appalling double standard on what constitutes "incitement" and what you'll tolerate from some but not from others.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Your answer is not logical at all. It's based on fallacies imbibed from an administration that worked OT to legitimize the illegal acts it had already committed, and has since rallied public support for those illegal acts by playing the fear card and insisting there's some kind of debate on the subject.
ismeme 2 years ago
Of course you avoid answering my question. "illegal acts" is a straw man if I've ever seen one. Laws can and MUST be broken if it is the only way to save lives, and every legitimate court of law in the land acknowledges these circumstances--they're called necessity defenses. And recognizing how the reality of the world sometimes works is NOT "playing the fear card." It's acknowledging that saving lives is sometimes a messy business, and sometimes you have to choose the lesser of the wrongs
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Right, ADEAL. O'Reilly calls out Tiller by name and slanders him for 4 years, but when others in the media report the truth about the illegal acts Bush and some of our soldiers/contractors were committng, you don't see the difference. You even think the words "illegal acts" add up to a straw man and then excuse the illegality as "necessary". And you claim to be logical. I don't know what you care about but it certainly isn't this country.
ismeme 2 years ago
What I care most about is saving innocent lives, whatever it takes to do so. Everything O'Reilly said about Tiller was true--it was no more "slander" than anything said about our military and Bush. But O'Reilly NEVER called for anyone to kill Tiller. But yes, if you believe someone is doing something wrong/illegal it IS your duty to call attention to it. I've said that NEITHER O'Reilly NOR the rest of the media are responsible for "inciting" any violence, but I'm consistent. You're not
ADEAL416 2 years ago
There's nothing illogical about the necessity defense, which is recognized by every court of law in the land.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
There is if you reach for it retroactively and support it with lies.
ismeme 2 years ago
Hey genius, all necessity defense are retroactive. When the necessity presents itself, you don't have time to go to court to get a waiver of the law. You have to do it, and then demonstrate that it was necessary, which we did in showing that standard "acceptable" interrogation was getting us NOWHERE with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
I meant to write "There is if you reach for legality retroactively and support it with lies." If your actions are honorable, you don't need to bring lawyers in later and lie about the results of your illegal acts to justify them. Which is precisely what Bush and Cheney did.
ismeme 2 years ago
Our legal system still insists on making the necessity defense official so that it ISN'T used when it doesn't actually apply. No "lies" about the results. It has been acknowledged even by Obama's intelligence director, Dennis Blair, that we DID get life-saving intelligence from the waterboarding. He speculates that we could have gotten that information some other way, and if we can, great. But when we can't, our back up plan better not be letting our citizens die, which you're advocating
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Straw man. I advocate following the law whenever possible instead of breaking it to get the desired results and then going back to cover it up.
If anyone saved "thousands of lives" it was Zaeni Zakaria, the pilot recruited by Hambali to carry out the L.A. Library Tower attack, who turned himself in to Malaysian authorities in Dec 2002 after deciding he wasn't ready to die for Islam.
ismeme 2 years ago
I do too. The key phrase here is "whenever possible." It's not always possible. When the "desired results" are saving thousands of lives, that's one time that those results are important enough to achieve them by any means necessary. And no, the plan didn't end with one person turning himself in--others still intended to take the lead. The final nail in the coffin of that plot wasn't driven until the summer of 2003--several months AFTER the capture of KSM. Hmmmm.........
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Those aren't the "desired results" I was speaking of. The desired results were linking AQ to Iraq.
ismeme 2 years ago
That wasn't done through interrogation at all. That was done through documents found of some early stage meetings (not involving 9/11) between Saddam's henchmen and some Al-Qaida officials. The meetings admittedly didn't get very far, but the limited links were documented, not obtained through interrogations at all.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Um, yes it was. Read about al-Libi.
ismeme 2 years ago
But the primary sources were the documents from the meetings. They may have gotten some bad intelligence from a few interrogations, but independently of any of that information, we still had documented evidence of these early stage meetings. Again, I acknowledge that they didn't get very far, but that's not the point. You combine that with the WMD intel, there's not much else you can do.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
If anyone can be said to have "saved thousands of lives" it was Zaeni Zakaria, the pilot recruited by Hambali to carry out the L.A. Library Tower attack, who turned himself in to Malaysian authorities in Dec 2002 because he didn't want to die for Islam. The plan ended there.
ismeme 2 years ago
That is precisely what the necessity defense does. It makes normally illegal acts retroactively legal when it is shown that lives were on the line if that law was not broken.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Lies tend to undermine the necessity defense.
ismeme 2 years ago
Maybe, but there are no lies here. Once again, even Blair acknowledges the actionable intelligence we got from such interrogations, and he's still generally opposed to using them, but that's because he's going on the assumption that we could have gotten that same information in other ways. So he'd better be willing to go back to those methods if and when these "other ways" he speaks of fail. At that point, it does indeed come down to which is LESS wrong.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
"Maybe"? The Bush admin's claim that torturing KSM saved thousands of lives is what it is, ADEAL - a LIE.
And I can't believe you'd turn to Blair as support for your opinion. Blair was in Bush's muck up to his eyeballs. The Downing Street memos prove that.
So much for your logic.
ismeme 2 years ago
Not TONY Blair, genius, DENNIS Blair--Obama's director of National Intelligence. Some scholar you are!! No "lies" here at all. We got the info that allowed us to put the final nail in the coffin of the Library Tower plot, as well as the info that helped us break up the Brooklyn Bridge plot. Again, testimony of those who witnessed it with their own eyes.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
"put the final nail in the coffin of the Library Tower plot", what a load of BS you spout. It's a waste of time to argue with you, you'll refuse to accept any evidence that disproves your opinion every time. That isn't logical. That's being a coward.
ismeme 2 years ago
The stuff about not putting the final nail in the coffin of that plot until several months after the capture of KSM comes from a BBC article, buster. Certainly no Bush administration lapdog. And even with somewhat ambiguous information about the Library Tower plot, there's still the small detail of the Brooklyn Bridge plot that was thwarted through the KSM interrogations.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Who cares who said it? It's BS, as was the Brooklyn Bridge "blowtorch" plot. Faris knew he'd never get away with it with all the security on NY bridges after 9/11, that's why he told his higher ups he was abandoning the idea six months before KSM gave us his name. AND we already knew about the plot through wiretapping.
I don't have an issue with arresting these people. I take issue with Bush & Cheney LYING about saving lives to justify torture.
ismeme 2 years ago
Not "BS" at all, and it has been corroborated by many sources within the CIA. That added security on the Brooklyn Bridge was only AFTER we picked up intercepts through the wiretaps. But at that point we didn't know WHO was planning to do it--only when KSM fingered Faris did we discover it. And again, he had not "abandoned" the plot, he had simply put it on hold until the weather was not so hot. So once again, no lies at all, and even Dennis Blair has acknowledged that.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Wrong again. "The weather is too hot" was code for calling off the plot. Faris checked the bridge's structure and security and determined it was unlikely to succeed. He sent that phrase in an email to one of KSM's associates in winter 2003.
Use logic.
Again, I have no problem with arresting terrorists. I have a problem with lying to justify torture. These plots had already been abandoned when KSM was waterboarded, contradicting the heroic claims of the Bush admin and the OLC memos.
ismeme 2 years ago
That is not what they discovered. The plan was still in the works. The plan was simply put off. There has been conflicting testimony about whether the plot would have worked and plenty of experts have said it would have. So you've avoided my question yet again.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Show me where it's being said that the plan was "put off" and evidence of the "plenty of experts" who say it could have worked.
ismeme 2 years ago
I know the testimony I've discovered, I've heard it on various news shows (and not all on Fox News either) and in articles from those with the direct first-hand experience. I didn't expect that nuts like you would be denying all of it, so I didn't take note of the name and date of the article or show. But that doesn't change what was in it, and if you want to continue lying to yourself, that's no skin off my nose.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
You act as if you aren't right this minute on the internet, where resides the greatest collection of information ever known to man. I guess you aren't capable of informing yourself and reaching your OWN conclusions, rather than having them handed to you. Apparently having an opinion is more important to you than having the knowledge to actually back it up.
I'm finished with you, ADEAL. You aren't interested in the truth at all, just the version you believe in. Typical.
ismeme 2 years ago
I HAVE informed myself, but in order to do so, you have to know what the REAL FACTS ARE!!!! They weren't "handed to me"--I actively sought them out. But I already know what I have discovered, I'm not going to look forward to it again because you can't acknowledge the facts. I have the knowledge to back it up--that, sir, IS truth. What I "believe in" is protecting our citizens' lives at all costs. Apparently you do not. Because you have avoided my question now for the SEVENTH time.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Unlike you, I'm ALWAYS researching. I'm ALWAYS prepared to take new info on board and weigh it against what I already know. I've just revisited this whole KSM thing and am even MORE convinced that the Bush admin lied to justify torture.
Believe what you like.
ismeme 2 years ago
I am also always researching, and I believe what is staring me right full in the face. I have heard NO refuting of what the facts were about the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed situation from ANYONE who was actually there when it happened, and that's who I'm going to listen to. Because everything else is nothing but wild speculation.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
My mistake, read that as Tony Blair, not Dennis Blair. He explained his opinion - that nothing we got by torture couldn't have been gotten via other means, and that torture is bad for our national security.
ismeme 2 years ago
And THAT, sir is pure speculation, that we could have gotten it via other means. I've said a thousand times if I've said it once, I'm not in any way opposed to getting information through these "other means" Blair speaks of. I'm simply asking the man in whose hands the safety of 300 million people lies what, pray tell, he intends to do in the cases where these "other means" fail to yield ANY actionable intelligence, and the answer better not be we'll have to let them die rather than waterboard
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Just like torturing to prevent attacks is pure speculation - and dumb speculation at that.
ismeme 2 years ago
No, it's not. That refers to previous verified facts. Blair's speculation about how else we could have gotten the information deals in the hypothetical. Blair acknowledges that we prevented attacks--he just says we could have done so without using such methods. Fine, but what about when we can't? You continue to avoid answering that question.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Yes it is. Trying to save lives using torture is at best reckless because the intel obtained is highly unreliable. That's a fact.
ismeme 2 years ago
Not when you've gotten no information from any other method. What you get from waterboarding may not always be reliable, but clearly there are cases where it has been, and once you've exhausted everything else, it is your only chance to save those lives. I never said use it in place of supposedly more reliable methods. I said use it when those other methods fail. It's that, or resign yourself to allowing thousands of innocent to die. Which do you choose??? ANSWER THAT QUESTION!!!!!!
ADEAL416 2 years ago
I couldn't agree more Adeal!
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
It's not a question worthy of answer because you present a false choice.
ismeme 2 years ago
Not according to those who interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Pardon me for taking their word over yours. Furthermore, even if you DO believe it's a false choice, when you are charged with the protection of 300 million people, you need to be ready for circumstances that you may truly believe will never present themselves--plenty of times people have had to make choices that they previously considered to be "false" So I will ask again, ANSWER MY QUESTION or you're not worth engaging with
ADEAL416 2 years ago
I asked what you do when all of the other methods considered "acceptable" have all failed?? You claim it to be a "false choice." What you are saying here, is that there are methods that are 100% (read that again, 100%--one more time 100%) effective at getting information out of someone who is withholding it. You better corroborate that with direct testimony showing that there are methods that have NEVER (repeat) NEVER failed. Because nothing less is acceptable when it comes to protecting us
ADEAL416 2 years ago
So you tell me, under those circumstances, where every "acceptable" method has been exhausted and yielded absolutely NOTHING, how what I asked you is a "false choice" in that case???? I'd LOVE to hear you finagle your way out of that one.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
No finagling required, just more logic. As any professional interrogator worth his salt will tell you, that situation - knowing a major attack is imminent AND knowing 100% you have someone connected to it in custody but they're refusing to talk - has never arisen and is unlikely to.
"24" is a tv show, not reality.
ismeme 2 years ago
Never seen "24" in my life, buddy--I'm not using that. I'm using the first hand testimony of those who dealt specifically with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, nothing more, nothing less. That is PRECISELY what happened in that case. So don't bother to answer me any more if you don't intend to answer the question I've asked you at least five times now.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
I have answered, you just aren't listening as usual. Torture is reckless and produces unreliable intel. That's why your scenario is bs. There is NEVER a time to use torture.
You claim to be logical, yet when presented with evidence to the contrary of your belief about what happened with KSM, you still insist you're right based on what those involved said - despite their obvious conflict of interest.
You have no critical thinking skills.
ismeme 2 years ago
You most certainly did NOT answer, so I'll ask the question for the SIXTH time. WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THE METHODS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO PRODUCE RELIABLE INTELLIGENCE PRODUCE NOTHING????? I've seen plenty of evidence from those with the ACTUAL FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of the situation that this is EXACTLY what happened with KSM, and again, you can't acknowledge it that's your own problem.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
How simple are you? GOOD OLD-FASHIONED DETECTIVE WORK. It can be done in a timely fashion and is far more accurate and reliable than intel from torture.
The people who have ACTUAL FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of what happened with KSM are conflicted in that they committed a CRIME and will say whatever it takes to keep from being prosecuted. Why do you think the CIA destroyed its interrogation tapes/videos after a court order NOT to, and demanded legal cover from Bush back in 2002? HUH?
ismeme 2 years ago
And I'm not against "good old-fashioned detective work." BUT IT IS NOT 100% EFFECTIVE!!!! And NOTHING less than that is acceptable when it comes to protecting this country and its citizens. WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN "GOOD OLD-FASHIONED DETECTIVE WORK GETS YOU NOTHING?????!!!!!!!!! That DOES sometimes happen!!!!! Demonstrating a "motive" to lie does not prove that one is lying, and that has NEVER been shown, at least not by anyone who was actually there!!
ADEAL416 2 years ago
NOTHING is 100% effective, genius.
ismeme 2 years ago
Precisely. And with that acknowledgment, you admit that there will be times where you get NOTHING from the "acceptable" techniques. Now I didn't say waterboarding is 100% effective either, but the point is, unless there was something else that IS 100% effective, we must NEVER take ANYTHING off the table that has EVEN ONE TIME saved lives. Because if we do--if we get nothing from the acceptable methods and decide that's as far as we'll go, and thousands more die, that blood is on OUR hands
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Why destroy the tapes? Probably so Al-Qaida couldn't train its operatives to resist each and every technique laid out in plain detail in those tapes. And maybe because they knew this bullshit would start happening and they would have to distract valuable time and energy to this witch hunt that should be used to SAVE LIVES!!!!!
ADEAL416 2 years ago
the law of torture in the U.S. specifically states that torture is when u inflict harm to someone and that harm causes a life injury to that person. it does not list examples of what is torture. the water boarding of the terrorists never led to any lifetime injuries. plus there was a doctor standing right there the whole time while they were doing it. we didnt violate any federal or int'l laws. the geneva conventions dont apply to Al Qaeda bc theyre not a country. i know the truth hurts huh
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
No, what hurts is your ignorance.
ismeme 2 years ago
whats the matter cant come up with anything to say? come on, pull out some more of those liberal talking points and avoid the facts.
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
It's all been said a thousand times. Facts don't move you, neither does logic. You torture apologists aren't interested in a thing that doesn't agree with your unfounded opinions. Well, I've got better ways to waste the rest of my life than to indefinitely indulge your insufferable, if well-rounded, stupidities.
ismeme 2 years ago
I don't know who that's directed at, me or him--but they're not "torture apologists"--they're people who have FIRST-HAND knowledge of what we're talking about, unlike you and those acting all righteous about the comfort level of terrorists. One more time, demonstration that someone may have motive to lie does not prove that they actually ARE lying. And those who have first-hand knowledge of the situation with KSM have NEVER been shown to be lying. Until they are, what they say stands.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
You care evil little twit may burn in hell
bumfire007 2 years ago
Whatever the fuck THAT was for. HUH????
ADEAL416 2 years ago
no i think its cuz u know the Bush Admin didnt break any laws and thats what kills u. Why do u think Obama or Holder isnt even talking about it anymore? they know they didnt break any laws so they cant prosecute anybody. it all kinda died away and theyre not as loud about it anymore as they were before. ppl like u solely want to prosecute Bush just bc hes a republican and it would further progress your agenda. No President should have to go through this stuff Republican or Democrat.
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
Thanks for proving my point. LOL
ismeme 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Whatever the fuck that means
ADEAL416 2 years ago
ppl like u are so out of touch with reality and its pointless to try and argue with u. ur not worth my time anymore
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
why don't you come to my office and I will waterboard you and see if it doesn't change your life.
heaty007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
like i said, the waterboarding of these terrorists NEVER lead to any long term injuries so technically it isnt torture according to the law. those techniques were used to protect our country from further attack. ppl like u want all these terrorists to have rights and u wanna put em in a five star hotel. u guys forget that we are at WAR and u do whatever it takes to win that war. we were attacked on our soil and over 3,000 Americans died. u guys have a short memory.
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
The point of most torture is to not kill your victim. In order for this to happen, logically and necessarily you would want to keep your victim alive a long as possible, and therefore not want to injure them per sei, but mearly inflict pain.
If I shock your balls for 100 continuous hours, using voltage ranging between 30-70 volts, there would not be any long term injuries so technically it isn't torture, right? You wouldn't mind letting this happen to you, correct?
YawnGod 2 years ago
Stop politicizing 9/11, you people make me sick. Respect the lives of the 3,000 dead instead of using them to make your sick case for torture.
clockworkorange1986 2 years ago 11
All i am saying is that u cannot condemn Pres Bush for doing what he did to protect this country. As the Pres of the U.S. that is his number 1 job. As far as im concerned i do not care if we torture to protect innocent American lives They would do 10x's worse to us if they could. I guarantee u if u were Pres when 9/11 happened then u would have done the exact same thing to prevent this from happening again. and dont ever say im politicizin 9/11 i love my country and would nvr politicze nat'l sec
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
that was a dumbass thing to say
mrsunshine22 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When OReilly comes on, I switch to Fox BUSINESS News and watch Judge Andrew Napolitano on "Freedom Watch." I get the news of the day and learn about the Constitution! What a deal!
vechorik 3 months ago
The original purpose of torture was to get a person to admit to a crime. It's not a useful interrogation technique, as it mostly provides inaccurate information.
Also regardless of the physical aspect, torture has long term effects on a persons mental stability.
That said there hasn't been any evidence which states that water boarding doesn't have any ill effects, such as what it does do to the respiratory system. So it's probably still technically torture.
RequiemVortex 2 years ago 3
those are terrorists who do not value human rights and will kill without question. we are in a war, this isnt a police matter. u do what it takes to win that war especially if it means to torture to save american lives. i dont believe we should torture for no reason. i do believe however u cant rule torture out to save American lives. the obama admin is treating the war on terror as police matter. they dont even use the words terror or war. they wanna put these ppl n civilian courts.
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
Well I would argue that torture is never the best method of interrogation, and using it actually puts lives at risk.
If you wish to validate your argument, state a scenario were torture would be more effective than a lie detector, a psycho-active agent or building up trust (the method preferred by professional interrogators).
If you can not, we must conclude that we must not torture for security reasons.
RequiemVortex 2 years ago
"those are terrorists who do not value human rights and will kill without question."
What proof can you and the US govt. have presented so far to prove that these detainees are in fact terrorists? 5 yrs have passed, and the US govt. has not been able to find any proof to justify their actions (show me one physical proof). Therefore how do you know that these people are actually involved with 9/11 or any other terrorist activities? You don't and thats why 500 of them have already been released.
sabbirsa 2 years ago
a defense dept poll showed that approx 14% of the released terrorists have returned to the battle field. Plus, we only waterboarded 3 CONVICTED terrorists. So dont try and paint the U.S. as a nation who tortures people just for the hell of it. Its sad to see that anybody would want to condemn there govt for protecting them. People like you dont care about this country, all u care about is trying to make this country look bad. The U.S. is not a torture nation like ur portraying it as
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
You torture people everyday, hundreds of people have even been killed by tazers.
smoochym 2 years ago
if everyone wants to go back to the Clinton era where we had the first attack on the wtc n '93, then the east africa embassy bombings in '98, then the USS Cole bombings in 2000 then u r going to get alot of ppl killed. we treated those terrorists acts as a police matter and not as an act of war. then when sept 11 happened Bush said enough this is an act of war. there has not been ONE attack on american soil since sept 11 bc of what Bush did. he succeeded in protecting this country unlike Clinton
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
Anthrax attacks happened only days after september 11th, so your just completely wrong. Besides, who was commander in chief on september 11th? It was Bush's responsibility to protect you, and to make sure the defence works, to which he failed.
smoochym 2 years ago
the attacks that happened under Clinton lead up to the sept 11th attacks. if Clinton would have been tougher, it wouldnt have happened. having said that, it was Bush's responsibility to keep us safe and he let sept 11th happen on his watch. but Bush treated it differently than what Clinton did. Bush did what no other President did before him and cracked down on Al Quaeda and the Taliban and prevented dozens of attacks on American soil including an attack on the brooklyn bridge and los angeles
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
The Anthrax was locally produced.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Your blaming the wrong people anyway, you should be talking about Kissinger, Brezinski, Robert Gates etc. They are the ones with real power.
smoochym 2 years ago
i dont know for sure, but i ASSUME your talking about some conspiracy theory that some rich ppl are really in control of the country or something. i dont know why u would say that kissinger or robert gates are the ones who REALLY have power. correct me if im wrong
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
Well you assume completely wrong, in fact you sound rather confused and incoherent. Brezinski, Kissinger, Gates et al- have been involved in nearly every aspect of American geopolitics for a long time, even to this day. They have been advisors to every one of your presidents at least as far back as JFK.
To deny they have a large influence over policy is just comically naive and somewhat ignorant.
smoochym 2 years ago
so what r u trying to say that Bill Gates, Kissinger etc were responsible for the 1993, 1998, 2000, and 2001 attacks? i think u dont know what u r talking about.
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
possibly, i think your just being a bit illusory now though...
smoochym 2 years ago
"so what r u trying to say that Bill Gates,"
No, i never mentioned Bill Gates at all; what pathetic strawman.
smoochym 2 years ago
you knew damn well that i meant robert gates, but instead of answering the question u chose to avoid it. normally people who dont have facts to support there answers do that, people like you
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
First, all i can say is you have to stop watching fox news, you're leaving facts completely out of your argument. Fact of the matter is Clinton tried to go after Osama and the republican congress stopped him. See he did this weird thing called following the law and trying to get things done correctly. I understand that's a foreign concept for someone so far up bush's ass
Cawby 2 years ago
People who were tortured by us during this war DID die. That's a fact. People we tortured have become incontinent and helpless. That's a fact. Most of the people we tortured turned out to be civilians, also a fact. Have fun in your delusional world where you will now just say that's all liberal propaganda and that you're the only one who is right in this situation.
Cawby 2 years ago
we only used enhanced interrogation techniques on 3 detainees who are known and convicted terrorists. THATS THE FACTS BUDDY STOP PUTTING YOUR LIBERAL SPIN ON IT. And i dont know if that other comment was directed at me but i can tell u that i dont like Bush just as much as u do. I dont like either party, im what u call an INDEPENDENT. I follow the Constitution not Political Parties that u probably do. And i dont follow the far left propaganda that u obviously take as facts.
CollegeLyfe23 2 years ago
Obama did not keep his promise: the troops are STILL in Iraq, and he said he will leave 50,000 in there, plus the 16 permenent bases! Pelosi last year used the excuse that congress alone couldnt bring the troops home because of a republican president.
What's her excuse now?
The liberals LIED to the nation, and will lose power as a result. Obama is HORRIBLE as president, he plunged us into debt we cant even imagine..watch what happens to our dollar when the inflation hits, Obama = Bush.
calimar28 2 years ago
How can he be a bad president? He has just gone over his 100th day!!!!!! And how could you even start to talk about a debt HE has put us in? That doesnt even make sense.
nucnuc069 2 years ago
Obama is bad. He gives billions in bailout to wall street firms and banks instead of letting them bankrupt which cleanses the system. He gives billions to the car companies, and they bankrupt anyway! He wasted trillions of taxpayers dollars that we dont even have. Where are those shovel ready jobs?
Let's not forget Obama's broken promises on the war.
He INCREASED troop levels in Afghanastan and keeping 50,000 in Iraq indefenatly, and keeping our bases there, angering Muslims. Obama LIED
calimar28 2 years ago
About what you said about inceasing troop levels in Afghanistan. THAT WAS OBAMA'S PLAN IN THE FIRST PLACE, you know why because al-qaeda is in Afghanistan and by going there we actually get to get back at the people who ACTUALLY ATTACKED US ON 9/11. And by the way Obama did keep his promise about getting us out of Iraq which we should not have been there in the first place. You're right about the 50,000 but come 2011 they will leave too.
vegitoth 2 years ago
Firstly, Obama says after 2011 he we KEEP troops in Iraq...as "non combatants" which makes no sense. They will defend the 16 permenent bases we have in Iraq. To Al Queda, this is still American troops in Iraq. So Obama isnt REALLY pulling us out of Iraq at all.
Second, Bin Laden is in Pakastan. Sending more troops to Afgan is not helping..in fact, it just impowerd Al Quieda to keep recruting. So Obama isnt doing any good in the mid east at all.
The best bet is to get out completley.
calimar28 2 years ago 2
cmontesi123 :I saw on your homepage you like to insult everybody who disagrees with you ;here's a tip;when YOU use the word genius to insult someone,make sure you spell it correctly.
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
You might want to spell my name right, too.
Also, there's a space after semi-colons, comas, etc. Might want to resolve that issue before calling someone out. Thank you and have a nice evening.
cmontesi23 2 years ago
"A space after semi-colons and commas" - Wow. You're not desperately reaching at all.
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
what the fuck is this idiot o'reilly rambling about? what a dumb fuck
nt0xik8ed 2 years ago
You liberals blamed O'Reilly for the death of that abortionist. So by logic, Olbermann is to blame for the murder of that recruiter.
StoogeWatcher 2 years ago
man before you copy billo give it some time so don't look like complete dumb ass parrot.
bumfire007 2 years ago