Amnesty International: Make Some Noise To Stop Torture

[wwood14]

What about the policy of Rendition?  Where is Amnesty Int. on the abuse of the Palestinians? The attack/piracy of the Relief Flotilla?

[DaftAida]

Amnesty run the same scam as the cancer campaigns and all high profile charities; you can throw your life savings into them, volunteer time, life, resources and it won't reduce ONE torture, cancer death, child abuse or whatever. Why? Because those raking it in behind these NGO fronts (tax free) ARE the torturers, rapists, child abusers and major shareholders of the pharmapsychopathical industry which causes cancers. But ain't she cute?

[DaftAida]

@stitchedplate41 So does mine - they use all sorts of innocent things as weapons, don't they? I bet I beat you in the tortured stakes though! Mine is 5 years lost sleep, work, character assassinations, assaults ..... all OK baby under the mental health laws protecting 'the vulnerable'.

[repelghosts]

dsilva is a convicted pedophile with a 6 count record.

Youyube is fully aware of theis scumbags actions,intentions and terrorist threats made to Youtube and certain inv\dividuals.

It is likely in prison by now, so we need not worry about 'stepping' on this camel jockey.

[dsilvia]

What does an actress know about the real world. Go back to TV land where you belong and leave the fight against Islamic Facism to the people who will keep you (Claire) from having your eyes plucked out and your head put on a pole safe from a fate reserved for you under radical islam.

[schwer78]

at least, knowing she's a public attraction, she does something far more constructive than a stupid youtube's comment like yours. How do you know she doesn't know anything about "real world"? YOU know something about "real world"? Do you think she's an actress because someone told her once "Hey, why dont you become an actress, the pay is good..."

I am not sure if she knows the world but what I certainly do know is that you dont.

envy kills, my friend...

[hvacrdude1]

I agree ! , but warfare is a better way to handle the same kind of warfare, we dont need to become like them , we only need to kill them for killing us , but its got to be warranted , agreed.

otherwise we become a tool or vice for the enemies propacrapa. or the tool or vice of the right winged radical fanatic extremist.

for patriotism , but its out of fear and cowardism and communistic like as a police state and hunting & torturing mexican immigrant families, such as arpaio and his hate group

[LEMOY121]

watch my new MUSIC VIDEO AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ...if you allow him

[heartsofspace]

Is it true Claire's long-lost brother, Farley "Fillibuster" Forlani, is a cross-eyed gynecologist in Bogota, Colombia?

[carlairving]

@NJburbsSeeker And, by doing so, becoming black rats ourselves? Way to go really...

[NJburbsSeeker]

@carlairving Only thing I regret about that statement was a spelling mistake. Who says we're better? I just want to see our way of life survive, and sometimes you have to do very bad things to make that happen. Things like killing people, bombing cities, and yes even some forms of torture sometimes. Better them than us, because if you don't do these things you'll only find slavery and repression at the hands of people who won't tolerate any decent.

[carlairving]

@NJburbsSeeker Funny. I always tought democracy and human rights were the basis of our way of life...

[NJburbsSeeker]

@carlairving Well, you'd be right if you were talking about human beings. We're not dealing with those in the war on terror.

[NJburbsSeeker]

Amnesty International attacks nations like the United States who may or may not torture international criminals and terrorists because in so many other nations you even protest government actions you will end up in prison or worse. If from time to time you have to hurt the scum of humanity to protect the test, well I can live with that. You aspire for better, but when your dealing with people from a sewer sometimes you have to go into the gutter.

[xxstarchildxx]

yes and in many other nations, if you even protest the government you will end up being tortured. it's got to be the same rule for all nations...torture is WRONG and inhumane!

[sehaimi]

that was so hot.

[joba606]

Why doesn't Amnesty International have a single video ANYWHERE that condemns actual Islamic terrorism?

Why do they only make videos condemning the tactics we've used to successfully stop terror?

Why did she mention only the USA by name in this video?

Waterboarding and stress positions are nonlethal interrogation methods - NOT torture. There is no physical damage from these techniques.

How suicidal is Amnesty International to condemn the methods that stop terrorist attacks?

[fatkenstein]

If the so called "effective methods" of stopping terrorists is a direct contradiction to the constitution, international human law and human decency what are we accomplishing? Establishing and maintaining torture goes against what the US stands for and is more counterproductive than anything else. Furthermore, the physcological damage of torture must also be taken into account. The debate is not whether torture is effective, it is about whether torture is morally advisable.

[joba606]

First, waterboarding is NOT torture.

'what are we accomplishing?'

Only the prevention of future terrorist attacks and the loss of thousands, maybe millions of innocent lives.

'torture...is more counterproductive than anything else.'

Nonsense. We haven't been attacked since 9/11. That's not by accident.

'the psychological damage of torture must also be taken into account.'

By that rule, we shouldn't yell at the terrorists too loudly - his feelings might be hurt too severely.

[fatkenstein]

As the article I have just sent you affirms, waterboarding is torture.

You single out what are we accomplishing without taking into account the fact that it is against our constitution(cruel and unusual punishments), against international law and an affront on human rights. If the US is willing to endorse such a brutal, barbaic technique in direct opposition to the fundamental rights that all Americans hold dear, then yes it is counterproductive. cont

[fatkenstein]

We could no longer claim to be a constitutional democracy having thrown away what we stand for.Civil liberties and human rights would be dead in this country as the government gained the ability to ignore the constitution as it believed "public safety" merited.Our criminal justice system would collapse as "innocent before proven guilty",our Miranda rights, and other necessary protections would be stripped away.(including the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution we would have ignored.)

[joba606]

The War on Terror is about SAVING LIVES.

LIVES.

You cannot watch your freedoms and liberties fly away if you've been slaughtered.

[fatkenstein]

Waterboarding as an interrogation method is considered torture under the Geneva conventions and under our own laws. Applied in a prison setting(when the person undergoing it does not know whats happening)it does not compare to the carefully controlled scenarios present in training exercises or voluntary torture. Also, waterboarding can be applied as long as the interrogator wants and it can also be applied repeatedly if the interrogator is not satisfied with the answer. cont

[joba606]

Waterboarding is applied until the terrorist speaks - NOT until the interrogator is satisfied with the answer.

As long as he's talking, the terrorist can cry at the table in front of his interrogators like Omar what's-his-name in that YouTube video, because he's not leaving until the interrogators' questions are answered.

[fatkenstein]

Such a method under prison conditions causes significant psychological damage including

1)Trauma

2)Paranoia

3)Schizophrenia

and other negative effects

Finally waterboarding is not subjected constitutionally because

1) The suspects are not informed of their rights

2) The suspects are held indefinitely without a trial

3) The suspects do not have an attorney present.

These are violations of some basic rights provided under the US law international law and the constitution.Waterboarding is illegal.

[joba606]

The alleged psychological damage caused by WB'ing hasn't stopped the military from using it to train our troops.

Which brings up another point - if 'torture' doesn't work, why haven't our enemies stopped using it?

Why do our Special Forces and Marines prepare to be tortured if everyone knows it doesn't work?

Didn't our enemies get the memo?

[fatkenstein]

"Waterboarding is not 'applying justice'."

Ah, so you agree with me that waterboarding is not in the interests of justice. "Positively identified" A person is not considered such until he has had a trial and many, many in Gitmo have not. Such can be seen in the holding of a fourteen year old boy(now in his 20's) who has been released just today.

[joba606]

Khalid Sheik Mohammed is a positively identified terrorist who planned and orchestrated 9/11 for Bin Laden.

He didn't need a trial for us to determine his guilt, or the need to get him to talk, since he knew more about Al Qaeda than anyone alive, except maybe Bin Laden himself.

Do you understand that people who lost relatives to that bastard would've liked to use a blowtorch to get him to talk?

I would've WB'ed him and slept like a baby.

[fatkenstein]

Yet the same UN was he one who opposed the war, citing lack of evidence(we now know they were right) It was the Secretary general who said

"On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal."

Thus you cannot claim the Iraq had international support.

[joba606]

The Coalition was all the international support we needed.

Why did the UN bother to charge Saddam Hussein with all those violations and draw all those resolutions if they had no intention of ever enforcing them?

The UN truly is irrelevant.

[fatkenstein]

Hussein never posed a real threat especially after what we did to him in the Gulf War. The WMD was exaggerated and turned out to be completely false. What is childish is actually believing he was a serious threat after the Gulf War, the sanctions and his relative isolation isolation. Preemptive war is generally foolish and it definitely was in this instance.

[joba606]

Hussein would've been a threat to us, his people and the Middle East as long as he was in power.

Pre-emptive war spared us the neccessity of going to war with him when he reached the height of his power, and level of danger he posed.

Did you actually think Hussein would've mellowed with age?

[fatkenstein]

Wiretapping is an invasion of privacy, therefore a violation of our rights. The Patriot Act has given large jurisdiction to the government and limited our criminal defense rights and privacy rights. When this becomes "imaginary" let me know.

[joba606]

A federal court ruled today(!) that the President has the authority to wiretap international calls and e-mails to and from this country, in order to protect his citizenry!

Very curious, the timing, don't you think?

Obama will be pleased.

But don't forget to call Bush a fascist when his helicopter leaves next week.

[joba606]

When you can prove that YOU or anyone else (excluding terrorists)has lost ANY rights due to the Patriot Act or wiretapping, let ME know.

[fatkenstein]

On water boarding- Yes until the terrorist speaks but as shown, water boarding is so painful that the terrorist will say what they think the interrogator wants to hear not the truth.(False confessions such as these have been documented I'll send you some info) Then when the interrogator discovers that it's a false confession, then guess what? they do it all over again...

[fatkenstein]

"The alleged psychological damage caused by WB'ing hasn't stopped the military from using it to train our troops."

As I've already pointed out there is a large difference between water boarding in a carefully controlled training exercise and that in prison.(I believe I have sent you an article when someone in the military confirms this very fact) cont

[fatkenstein]

Good I'm glad you bring up the point that our ENEMIES use torture. These enemies that are anti-democratic, anti-freedom and anti-American. Now we want to follow these enemy's methods? Our enemies use torture not just to extract info but also to gain cannon fodder for their propaganda machines. And as I said at the beginning of this debate, I am not arguing if torture is effective but rather if it's morally permissible.

[fatkenstein]

I understand that people who have lost relatives in this tragedy are often the most supportive of using extreme methods. However as I've said torture goes against the very document the US was founded with. It goes against international law, why frankly it goes against common human decency. While, you may be perfectly comfortable with allowing the violation of the US constitution, I am not.

[fatkenstein]

Did you forget what we did to Hussein in the Gulf War? Did you forget his isolation from the international community. Did you forget his country's horrible economy? A threat he may have been but not one that merited a war. Soft power would have worked just as well on him. A war is not something you declare on a whim(or with inadequate, inaccurate intelligence.)

[joba606]

Soft power did not work with Hussein.

He stayed in power, torturing whomever displeased him, refusing to do away with the 550 tons of Yellwcake uranium he was supposed to destroy, etc.

As I told you - eventually he would've been our problem, probably when we least expected it.

[fatkenstein]

Not to mention habeas corpus rights.

You do not believe that ignoring the constitution, human rights and civil liberties would have been much more devastating than 9/11? I do. Ignoring the very document that defines our existence as a country IS far more devastating and wide reaching than 9/11.

"You cannot watch your freedoms and liberties fly away if you've been slaughtered."

Conversely, life becomes much less meaningful without our civil liberties and constitutional rights. cont

[fatkenstein]

Now, I consider life and liberty the most intrinsic and essential rights that must be protected within the realm of the constitution.(This can be seen in my opposition to both the death penalty and abortion) However, if we are protecting the right to life by denying the rights of others we are being very, very counterproductive to our goals and ideals.

The rallying cry of this country was once "give me liberty or give me death." Let's hope we never lose sight of this.

[joba606]

'if we are protecting the right to life by denying the rights of others we are being very, very counterproductive to our goals and ideals.'

So now we have to empty all our jails?

[fatkenstein]

The UN enforces it's resolutions via sanctions most of the time and war as a last resort. Obviously the UN did not see Iraq as requiring a military response. International support? The entire UN vs 33 coalition countries(some of which had no standing army, most of which have left the war) Ah yes, true international support.

[joba606]

'The UN enforces its resolutions via...war as a last resort.'

NO THEY DON'T.

They would've imposed sanctions against Hussein for the next hundred years before they'd declare war.

[fatkenstein]

I already told you that I agree with you that life is one of the most fundamental rights. However, I believe we can protect lives without resorting to torture and other extreme unconstitutional methods. I have no problem with jailing murderers that have been proven guilty in a valid court of law and who have not had forced confessions via torture. Whether or not terrorists deserve torture is not what we are arguing. Anyone can make a convincing argument that they do cont

[fatkenstein]

What we are saying is whether a constitutional republic such as the United States should go against it's ideals and founding documents in the attempt.(ex we can say rapists deserve to be raped but we do not use this punishment because we as a society has come to see this as immoral and fundamentally flawed.)

Thankfully Obama's AG has designated water boarding as torture and is proceeding to shut down Gitmo and other places. It is a valid concern where we will try and imprison the ones who are

[joba606]

First, I do not agree that waterboarding is torture.

Second, the Constitution dictates laws for American citizens, not foreign terrorists. Therefore, it would not be 'unconstitutional' for us to waterboard them.

Third, do not fool yourself.

Closing Gitmo, ending waterboarding, and reversing other tactics created by George W. Bush, will make us MORE likely to be attacked again.

Terrorists look for our weaknesses in order to exploit them.

Your weakness is their strength.

[fatkenstein]

On your first point- I understand that you do not think waterboarding is torture, I disagree with you but I doubt that I can change your mind even with the bountiful evidence I have sent you.

On your Second Point- As long as they are under US jurisdiction the constitution still applies. This has been decided in the Supreme Court(sending article)

Third, if you consider the application of our constitution a weakness of the US then I seriously urge you to reexamine your definition of weakness.

[joba606]

Any concern for the rights of captured terrorists leading towards giving them rights (loopholes) that terrorists will exploit in the future is weakness - and dangerous naivete.

The recent Supreme Court decision will have lethal consequences.

[fatkenstein]

The recent Supreme Court decision is a reaffirmation of the constitution and it's rights(not loopholes) that are guaranteed to all under it's jurisdiction. I doubt that standing up for our ideals will have deadly consequences but only time will tell. Thanks for all your comments.

[xxstarchildxx]

you're entitled to your opinion and i'm not going to insult you, but the journalist christopher hitchens was also of your opinion and agreed to have it done to him..the video is on youtube, you might want to see it. secondly, many of the GITMO inmates were found to be innocent, none had been given fair trials, and were just being randomly tortured..how is that fair?? plus if one was being tortured, you would confess to anything in order for it to stop.

[joba606]

I saw the Hitchens video.

You want to know how to make sure you don't ever get waterboarded?

Don't be a terrorist.

[fatkenstein]

actually terrorists but I am confident we will find a mutually beneficial solution(between Republicans and Democrats).

On Clinton and Gore, since weapons were not found then yes they lied or perhaps they were other casualties of "faulty intelligence."

Thanks for the great debate, it is always wonderful to hear the opinions of others on both sides of the issues.

[fatkenstein]

On court ruling

Good that is the way it's supposed to go, you need a warrant to wiretap, hence the term "warrantless" wiretapping(which basically translates to illegal wiretapping). Now, I have never called Bush a fascist and I won't, I disagree vigorously with him but I don't think he is a fascist.(In fact not too long ago I said as much on another video)

[joba606]

Interception and eavesdropping of international calls between suspected terrorists is perfectly legitimate.

The Patriot Act allows us to eavesdrop with the same technologies and practices used to combat organized crime.

Why NOT eavesdrop on them?

The First Amendment is NOT a suicide pact.

We DON'T have to tell the enemy EVERYTHING we plan to do against him.

It's INSANE not to wiretap them. If it's good enough to wiretap our own criminals, it's good enough to tap terrorists.

[fatkenstein]

You know as well as I do that people who go to prison had their rights removed after due process(they had a trial with an impartial jury, they had an attorney present, they were not held indefinitely without guilt being proven, they were not tortured for information.)They were allowed their full criminal, Miranda rights and that is a major difference between them and the prisoners in Gitmo. Their rights were limited by due process. The prisoners in Gitmo have had their rights VIOLATED.

[joba606]

The prisoners at Gitmo are NOT supposed to like their incarceration.

They are NOT entitled to the same rights American citizens are entitled to. Period.

[fatkenstein]

After the Gulf War when Hussein's power was severely curtailed soft power began to have a profound effect. Once again I cite the economy after this war, the lack of any weapons of mass destruction, the relative isolation of Hussein's regime. After the gulf war the threat from Hussein was effectively ended and we did not need to go to war over it.(especially under false pretenses a point I will continue to stress)

[joba606]

In 1992 Senator Al Gore (running for VP) on Nightline said that Saddam Hussein was developing WMD's in violation of UN resolutions, and harbored about 1,400 terrorists. The video is on YouTube.

In President Bill Clinton's 1998 SOTU address, also on YouTube, he stated that Saddam Hussein had 'spent the better part of' the 1990's seeking and developing WMD's.

So that year, Clinton signed into law the Iraqi Liberation Act, making regime change in Iraq U.S. POLICY.

Did Clinton and Gore LIE?

[fatkenstein]

The first amendment is not a suicide pact but it is a pledge for equal rights, it is a pledge for the respect of human dignity, it is a pledge that we the people have RIGHTS that cannot be infringed upon. This is where you and I diverge. I believe that anyone in US jurisdiction is entitled to all the rights under the US constitution. Period

"When fighting monsters one must be careful not to become that which he despises"

[joba606]

The First Amendment is not a pledge - it is LAW.

The First right, you'll notice, in 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' is LIFE.

You have the right to live your life and no-one has the right to take it away from you.

That is why we jail murderers and other violent offenders.

Mass-murdering fascists who've pledged their lives to the destruction of our country and the murder of our citizens do not deserve the considerations you're asking for - and it's too great a risk.

[xxstarchildxx]

i can see why you hold the opinion that you do and you have a point about the rights of 'mass murdering fascists' but if a government imprisons random foreigners who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, denies them fair trials and tortures them to be the point that they are on hunger strikes/ suicide watch, many of whom have been found to be innocent (e.g binyam mohammed) then the government are the fascists and capable of murder. watch taxi to the dark side (it's on youtube)

[joba606]

'random foreigners'?

They are suspected terrorists.

'deny them fair trials'?

They are not entitled to the same rights as U.S. citizens. Further, their countries of origin won't take them back and try them. And frankly, most captured terrorists at Gitmo don't want to be returned to their home countries - they won't be treated as nicely as they've been treated at Gitmo.

'many of whom'?

A few at most.

Every day police around the world arrest suspects who turn out to be innocent.

[fatkenstein]

As you can see risking our constitutional rights to prevent a disaster could have arguably caused a much more potent threat to the security of the nation. A threat that is still present as we continue to torture, follow the patriot act and allow the government unlimited access to our privacy.

[joba606]

Neither your rights nor your privacy have been violated.

If you're not involved in terrorism, Bush doesn't care WHO you are.

[fatkenstein]

The simple fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 does nothing to justify torture.(It is comparable to doing a dance that you claim will stop rain and then when it does not rain claiming that your method is effective)

On physical damage, there is physical damage from this torture as the article I sent affirms.(BTW torture itself is designed to be nonlethal, dead men tell no tales after all) cont

[joba606]

As I've previously established, no-one would volunteer for REAL torture. That's why Christopher Hitchens volunteered to undergo it. Because he knew when it was over, he'd get a fresh towel, and be done with it.

95% of the world's police and intelligence services don't BOTHER with waterboarding. They just take the suspect down to the basement, and 5 or 6 large men with clubs beat him senseless.

George W. Bush REFUSED to do that.

Instead, he chose the nonlethal alternative.

[fatkenstein]

Finally, psychological damage must be taken into account as it can have effects as debilitating and life changing as those of the more obvious physical torture. Obviously you don't understand or choose to ignore the fact that the psychological damage induced by waterboarding go far beyond that of "yelling at them too loudly" (Not to mention the fact that forcing a confession goes against the fifth amendment of right to not incriminate oneself)

[joba606]

You are wrong on every count.

If the psychological pressure from the experience of waterboarding was too extreme, and left permanent mental scars, why is WB'ing still being used on our Marines and Special Forces TODAY?

Even Mexico's military and police have WB'ing in their training.

[fatkenstein]

Especially since these people are usually being tortured before a trial, with no access to a defense, before a proof of guilt is established etc. These methods are directly contradictory to out constitution and continuing along this path will further harm our already damaged world image.

[joba606]

Remember, one month before 9/11 the FBI arrested the 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui. They knew he was involved in some plot but couldn't make him talk.

They were still waiting on warrants to search his laptop and luggage when 9/11 happened.

Imagine how different your world would be right now if he'd been WB'd.

No 9/11. Which also means...

No War in Afghanistan. No Patriot Act. No Gitmo. No Iraq War. No secret prisons. No wiretapping.

If only one terrorist had been WB'd. Think.

[fatkenstein]

First off I am not wrong on any count. Waterboarding as a training exercise is short, and designed to show our men in SERE's exactly how a totalitarian regime would torture them. As Malcolm Nance says "Having been subjected to this technique, I can say: It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period. However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique - without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it." cont

[joba606]

'Waterboarding as a training exercize is short'

Waterboarding as INTERROGATION is short, never lasting 3 minutes.

[fatkenstein]

The degree to which waterboarding is used in training does not compare to how it is used in interrogation, when the objective is not to toughen or inform the participant of the effects but rather to force a confession and to subjugate the victim to the interrogators will. Prolonged waterboarding(as used to extract information) has obvious and detrimental psychological effects that have been well documented. cont

[joba606]

'Prolonged waterboarding'?

Not when U.S. interrogators have applied it.

3 minutes or less. Usually less.

When they say, "I'll talk!", the waterboarding is over.

[fatkenstein]

The only reason volunteer for waterboarding is not because they consider it not torture but rather to determine if it is torture(Thanks to the effort of men such as John Yoo who have consistently tried to redefine torture so as not to include techniques as waterboarding) Not to mention the fact that eyewitnesses are and those who have experienced it are not the only ones to define waterboarding as torture. (As I've pointed out it goes against Geneva conventions and other international law) cont

[fatkenstein]

According to you, because other countries the world engage in less savory methods of applying justice(It's arguable that waterboarding is just as bad as a physical beating) then our methods are justified? This is false especially when compared to the ideals embodied in the Constitution, US law and the analysis of countless legal experts.(an argument you have still failed to address) As I pointed out most torture is non-lethal(as killing the victim would defeat the point) cont

[joba606]

"because other countries...engage in less savory methods of applying justice"

Waterboarding is not 'applying justice'.

WB'ing is breaking a positively identified terrorist's silence.

If he's answering questions, he doesn't get WB'ed.

If he refuses to talk, he gets wet.

[fatkenstein]

so claiming that Bush chose the non- lethal alternative offers no reprieve from the fact that waterboarding is torture.

On your final assertion

Obviously anyone who has a vested interest in this subject has given serious thought to it and it's ramifications. As such several of your purported scenario's were in existence or would have continued even after 9/11.

1)No Gitmo- Gitmo has been in existence for years before 9/11

2) Secret prisons- the aforementioned statement applies.

cont

[joba606]

"1)No Gitmo- Gitmo has been in existence for years before 9/11"

I meant as a holding facility for captured terrorists.

You weren't complaining about Gitmo before 9/11.

[fatkenstein]

Iraq War- The purported reasons for Iraq War was to search for weapons of mass destruction, while 9/11 undoubtedly had a hand in the invasion of this country, it was not the main catalyst and thus Iraq would have occurred without it.(it did however serve to weaken political leader's resolve so they could not stand up to Bush's argument that there was an imminent threat)

[joba606]

The reason for the Iraq War was not to simply 'search' for WMD's.

There were 14 UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, most concerning WMD's.

In 1998 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraqi Liberation Act, making regime change in Iraq U.S. POLICY.

You can see Clinton warn of Iraq's WMD's in his 1998 SOTU address, on YouTube.

Leaving Hussein in power after 9/11, and hoping he wouldn't become our problem down the road was, and still is, simply childish thinking.

[fatkenstein]

Now on 9/11 causing the Afghanistan war, the patriot act and wiretapping, that is true and these injustices(excluding Afghanistan which was justified) proves that the results of 9/11 led to negative effect and a limitation of freedoms we Americans hold dear thus indirectly achieving the terrorists goal.

On the hijacker- whether or not we would have prevented 9/11 if we had thrown out our principles is debatable, however what is unquestionable is that no government entity has the right to cont

[joba606]

There has been no limitations of your freedoms, or anyone else's, due to the Patriot Act or wiretapping of international calls by suspected terrorists.

You cannot name for me one American whose rights were demonstrably violated by either the Patriot Act or the wiretapping.

It's all completely imaginary.

[fatkenstein]

Gitmo has been a holding facility for SUSPECTED terrorists and SUSPECTED criminals long before 9/11 and yes we liberals have been protesting this long before 9/11.(me personally no because I did not become interested in politics until after 9/11)

[fatkenstein]

ignore the essential constitutional rights in the name of safety. In the spirit of Benjamin Franklin "those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" This is precisely why torturing is counterproductive, we are endorsing a policy that goes against everything America stands for. If we had allowed these rules to collapse the consequences would have been far more devastating than 9/11. cont.

[joba606]

Allowing terrorists to be waterboarded would never 'have been far more devastating than 9/11'.

Nothing could be more devastating than that except, God forbid, a nuclear attack on this country.

[F10ert]

I nailed her last night..........and i am no liar

[Allllthings]

this is a bit naive aint it. i agree with RCWJ75. ideally clearly its not right but realistically... yes yes your bound to torture the wrong people some of the time but i don't think suicide bombers will tell you information over a cup of coffee.

[RCWJ75]

It's wrong under ANY circumstance...sure, until someone you love is in the crosshairs or about to be fuckin raped, murdered, cut up, etc....then get on camera or protest getting info anyway possible....I bet if her fuckin father, daughter, mother, brother, sister etc was about to be beheaded she wouldn't make this stupid ass commercial....

sure...no torture, no war, no violence would be a great world...but guess what...WELCOME TO FUCKING REALITY!!!!!!!!

[danrush64]

I would let Claire torture me!

[kingfbi]

me too.

[AkashaAnna]

Claire Forlani..YaY!

[Mistertbones]

You know what they say, all toasters, toast toast! I'll include this in a youtube poop.

[natalitaK]

make some noiseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

mpravo to all famous people that use their fame for good purpose

keep the faith

keep your mind and heart open

[Mistertbones]

I love Claire. Although we should stop torture, it was unnecessary to include the United States in it.

[samdonuge]

LOL r u kiddin me?

[mynameissaskia]

why not include the us? they are a very powerful country alledgedly "democratic" and they are involved in this.

[georgealberto1985]

claire will you marry me.

[danrush64]

I called dibs on Claire years ago!!

[georgealberto1985]

beautiful and that english accent so hot

[ponyboy15]

Clair Forlani is the most beautiful woman in the world!

[brandonthyname]

God bless you, Claire my little English muffin. Torture is indeed wrong on so many levels, and no military or criminal governments should allow it to ever go on. Right on you for speaking out. God bless your big heart ...

- Brandon (Tennessee)

[andrepirre]

me too !!! hehehe

[anndarrow]

I LOVE CLAIRE!