"Yes, It's torture"...

greg334 · May 26, 2009

Well that was interesting.....

Gotti made a point in an interview - his neighborhoods were safe for old ladies and children.... because he wanted it that way. It wasn't uncommon for a Don to take care of his territory.

As for innocent people, there were problems but nothing like it is today. Up until the 1960's and the Kennedy's lust for power, innocent people were off limits and I know of a few cases where someone inocent was hurt and the person who did the damage was ordered to deal with fixing the problem. A lot of what went on was among the members of the families, not common people or their wives, children or realitives. When Bobby the saint started his movement in the 50's, he in effect screwed everything up for the future that created a vacuum where gangs and other organized crime came in and filled the gaps. We live with the results of the Kennedy's going after organized crime..

You do know that the FBI and the DHS has been helped by the "mafia" with terrorism?

LDB · May 26, 2009

witness23 said:
Two wrongs don't make a right

Where do two wrongs enter the picture when discussing the handling of terrorists?

DougTravels · May 26, 2009

LDB said:
Where do two wrongs enter the picture when discussing the handling of terrorists?

Being a civilized soceity, we have laws regarding how we treat terror suspects. Our government officials need to respect our own laws when dealing with all people, even terrorists.

You can yell and scream all you want about what to do with terror suspects Leo.

You should think for a moment though, what if the Obama administration read all of your posts and decided that you were an enemy and ignored our laws when dealing with you? Maybe they would think waterboarding would get you to talk? Maybe they would jail you for years without filing charges?

Before you go jumping to conclusions and put words in my mouth let me say that I do not consider you an enemy of the country. I am just trying to point out that the same laws that protect the guilty, protect the innocent.

DougTravels · May 26, 2009

LDB said:
Where do two wrongs enter the picture when discussing the handling of terrorists?

Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like

mjolnir131 · May 26, 2009

DougTravels said:
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like

exactly where in the Constitution does it cover terrorists? well expert home grown terrorist who should be treated under the treason section and be hung and not use a needle

cruzer · May 26, 2009

The way to get LDB to talk would be to make him drink koolAid and listen to Obamas acceptance speech, over and over,that would break him.

DougTravels · May 26, 2009

The point being whether they are foreign or home grown alleged terrorists, we need to make sure that we have the right people in custody. Without checks and balances we become a Nazi State.

davekc · May 26, 2009

At the end of the day, Obama has decided to retain the same "enhanced interrogation policies" that the Bush administration had. Doesn't mean he will use them, but none of them have actually changed. The only real mistake was publicizing them.

aristotle · May 26, 2009

In typical liberal fashion, Obama will badmouth Bush's foreign policy initiatives and tactics while retaining them for his own administration's possible future use. The gravity of the threats our nation faces is settling in on Obama.

LDB · May 26, 2009

The point being that when it comes to people who want to see every one of us dead the only law should be to find out what they have planned and stop it. So much whining and crying and hand wringing and teeth gnashing over being mean to someone on the playground. In the grand scheme of things that's all that waterboarding is. Get over it. Move on. Find a life.

Alternatively, think of which of your loved ones should be in the next WTC event. Talk to them. Tell them that you are against meanness and rather than see some terrorist subjected to a temporary discomfort that can not possibly be fatal and leaves no lasting scars or other physical damage you've decided it's better that several thousand innocent people die, including them.

You think we don't need to waterboard anyone because we haven't been attacked at home again. Newsflash, waterboarding is one of the reasons we haven't and without it we would have been attacked already.

Waterboarding is mean. It might even qualify us to be called great big meanies. Big stinking deal. It saves lives of Americans. The end, or at least it should be.

greg334 · May 27, 2009

Without checks and balances we become a Nazi State.

Well using you implied analogy, we are close to it now with Obama telling GM and Chrysler what to do, interfiering with consitituitional mandats (contracts), having anyone called a Czar running things, using ethnicity and using the idea that came from a poor background to get elected and how we have zero balance in congress - ALL OF THIS HAPPENED IN 1933 IN GERMANY.

If you want me to explain what I mean, I will do so, send me a PM...

If you imply that Bush's administration was the beginning of a Nazi state or was one, you followed the talking points rather well and don't get it.

DougTravels · May 27, 2009

greg334 said:
Well using you implied analogy, we are close to it now with Obama telling GM and Chrysler what to do, interfiering with consitituitional mandats (contracts), having anyone called a Czar running things, using ethnicity and using the idea that came from a poor background to get elected and how we have zero balance in congress - ALL OF THIS HAPPENED IN 1933 IN GERMANY.

If you want me to explain what I mean, I will do so, send me a PM...

If you imply that Bush's administration was the beginning of a Nazi state or was one, you followed the talking points rather well and don't get it.

I am not talking just about the GWB's administration soley, I believe there needs to be checks and balances for everyones sake when dealing with alleged terrorists.

Without them, there is nothing stopping gov't officials from taking people for disagreeing with them and labeling them a terrorist threat.

The Bush admin. could have labeled me, the Obama admin. could label some who fear losing their guns, and say that they will fight to keep them.

It's the old Absolute power theory, I am not pro terrorist by any means but I do believe that Gov't officials have a burden of proof that should be followed, or else who will protect us from them while they are protecting us from the terrorists?

DougTravels · May 27, 2009

Leo, Layout, Greg and I don't find much common ground, but I would think we should on this matter.

LDB · May 27, 2009

The rules governing taking someone in as a terrorist have nothing to do with interrogation methods once they are taken. Those are two separate and distinct things. I am all for having a reasonable system in place for initiating detainment, keyword reasonable. It must protect honest citizens while freely and expeditiously detaining those intent on doing us harm. Anyone and everyone not a citizen of the U.S. is not covered by or protected by the Constitution, nor should they be.

Anyone proven, proven to be involved in a terror plot or activity should be executed for it. If they are Muslim their corpse(s) should be coated in swine blood and buried face down in a grave. There are no virgins for those buried in contact with swine blood and face down. If they are proven terrorists they deserve no more and no less.

I do also think that we all should agree on this matter.

mjolnir131 · May 27, 2009

Had a history teacher that well was a package to say the lest ,kinda scary really Didn't understand allot of things like oh not starting a paragraph with the word because(2nd amendment) other silliness, sad and scary really, anyways you get the picture.

This professor made the statement that the constitution applied to anybody who was in the USA irregardless if here legal or not. At which point i asked so your saying that if an army invades US soil at that point the army can't shoot them and must arrest them? but wait the army can't be use ageist the populous so the cops have to arrest them right? to which he then did his text book approach of changing the subject.

Poorboy · May 27, 2009

LDB said:
The rules governing taking someone in as a terrorist have nothing to do with interrogation methods once they are taken. Those are two separate and distinct things. I am all for having a reasonable system in place for initiating detainment, keyword reasonable. It must protect honest citizens while freely and expeditiously detaining those intent on doing us harm. Anyone and everyone not a citizen of the U.S. is not covered by or protected by the Constitution, nor should they be.

Anyone proven, proven to be involved in a terror plot or activity should be executed for it. If they are Muslim their corpse(s) should be coated in swine blood and buried face down in a grave. There are no virgins for those buried in contact with swine blood and face down. If they are proven terrorists they deserve no more and no less.

I do also think that we all should agree on this matter.

Way To Go Leo, I Like Your Way of Thinking! But It's Not Gonna Happen Because there's too Many Bleeding Heart Liberals Out There as well as The Communistic ACLU, But Good Thinking Anyway!

greg334 · May 27, 2009

DougTravels said:
I am not talking just about the GWB's administration soley, I believe there needs to be checks and balances for everyones sake when dealing with alleged terrorists.

Without them, there is nothing stopping gov't officials from taking people for disagreeing with them and labeling them a terrorist threat.

The Bush admin. could have labeled me, the Obama admin. could label some who fear losing their guns, and say that they will fight to keep them.

It's the old Absolute power theory, I am not pro terrorist by any means but I do believe that Gov't officials have a burden of proof that should be followed, or else who will protect us from them while they are protecting us from the terrorists?

See Doug there is a lot of common ground but not with terrorism.

Checks and balances have to be there but we are seeing two things emerge from the last election, a form of Fascism and socialism and the ignorance of the population.

People, I mean liberals are very quick to stomp on Bush but you want to know a secret? The modren times is the best when it comes to personal rights and safety of those rights. You need to really study history to know that we were more restricted int he past, especially between 1914 and 1923 and it was the republicans who removed a lot of those laws that were damaging. I keep telling you that the dems are the party of slavery and if you read some of what is being said by people like Reid and Pelosi, not the snippets but the actual comments, it all looks like the 1930s - you pick the country.

The first one is clearer now in the past few days and is just like the Nazis in the late 30's - Obama's administration is not asking GM what to do but telling them with this issue of the bond holders taking pennies on the dollar. No one is around to stop him, he is overstepping his authority and the congress is silent. No balance at all there. To explain what I mean, look at what Hitler did, pretty much the same exact thing to 'take over' companies that didn't fall in line with the National Socialist way of thinking and he made claims that he was doing to so the people will get back what they put in, hence an ownership of the company by the government. In that case, the ownership actually went to cronies of the party, Goring and other party members became rich.

GM is being 'told' what to do by Obama's Automotive Taskforce Czar, which leaves them to be commanded by Obama almost directly. His agenda, like Hitler's is going to shape the company and when it does sort of recover, the stake that WE own will end up being divided up between others who are politically involved with either Obama or the party. When you look at the Czar concept, it is a lot like the soviet's way of business management, which is dictate the outcomes and demand people to fall on their sword when it fails.

The sad part is that GM will become another shell, we the consumer will get screwed by the Green agenda and we the tax payers will foot the bill in the end. The best thing that could have been done would be to let GM borrow the money and change the tax system......

Ignorance of the people gave us a black president, not a president who happens to be black... know the difference..... learn what Rev King wanted..... learn the difference....

layoutshooter · May 28, 2009

Well Greg, one thing for sure, we can talk till we turn blue but it will do no good. It seems that MOST in this country now WANT to just sit back and be ruled. They no longer have any gumption. LAZY is now the name of the game. Looks like that 1930's plan from our friends in Soviet Russia worked.

greg334 · May 28, 2009

That plans goes back farther than the 30's Layout, it goes to the root of Marxism and the followers of it in the late 19th century. We embraced it here through a number of both republicans and democrats starting with TR going through Bush covertly, only three presidents were worth anything because they ignored the movement and understood the same concepts; Taft, Hoover and Reagan.