What you get from torture is "whatever you want to hear" and of course all that enjoyment other people's suffering. It's what the "subject" believes will minimize the abuse, for now. But there do seem to be folks who like having an excuse to enjoy other people's suffering.

People have no idea what they are talking about. We as a nation should be above torture. We should never be caught doing it. It is an abhorrent practice.

But the idea that it does not work is fallacious. Torturing random people on the off chance they have information like the former Soviet Union does not work very well. Torturing a suspect that has the information you need actually works quite well.

Again we should be above it, and whether "enhanced interrogation" qualifies as torture puts us too far in the weeds. There are many reasons not to use torture and I agree with all of them. It is just that the idea that it does not work is not one of them. Ask any street cop.

Sorry for another non sequitur, but earlier I mistook one of Ron's posts and was rude in response. I'm sorry about that. I retract what I said to him.

Good to see that this thread has leapt from abortion to torture.

Originally, it was about a little girl who shot somebody dead with an Uzi. Now it is about something different, hooray.

I watched Dr Who with my nine year old son today; we chatted about it too. Am I a bad parent for not trying to teach him to fire an automatic weapon for no reason other than to use a gun? I am worried that he is missing out on gun-firing classes. He is nine years old, it should be his right to fire a Kalashnikov, Uzi or similar. Harumph.

We issue a lot of tourist visas if you want to surprise him for Christmas.

With the almost certainty that a weapon of mass destruction will be unleashed and someone may have knowledge of it, torture is my weapon of choice.

Those were their claimed sources; they had much evidence to the contrary.

But they were wrong. So the ticking time bomb scenario was nonsense. It was an excuse to go to war. Asked in September 2002 why the administration didn't go to war with Iraq earlier if Sadaam was such a threat, Andy Card, the White House chief of staff replied''From a marketing point of view you don't introduce new products in August.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/07/us/tra......raq.html

Yea I mean he was following ALL the UN resolutions to the letter after all.

In the same manner as Israel and the US? I await all the wars based on non-compliance with UN resolutions.

The charges against Hussein were selective nonsense ramped up so the war machine could be greased.

The UN, however, did not sanction the invasion.

http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html

From Bob's link...

The goal, U.S. President George W. Bush said in a speech, was "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

My question is, if 9/11 never happened, do you think we still would have launched a war against Iraq?

Ron

Yes. I believe that Bush was set on finding a way to go to war with Iraq from the day he was elected. The fact that Saddam had planned an assassination of Bush Sr. after the first Gulf War may have been part of that motivation. Control of Iraqi oil fields was, of course, another.

9/11 simply provided a context in which it was easier for Bush to justify the invasion, even though Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 and the Taliban were operating from Afghanistan. There was a serious effort to identify Saddam with the 9/11 terrorists so that the invasion could be portrayed as part of the so-called "war on terror."

Had 9/11 not occurred, the war probably wouldn't have started so quickly, but it would have been "justified" nonetheless, by portraying Saddam as a threat to global peace and regional stability. The WMD and nuclear weapons allegations would have been the same.

The motive, was Saddam had planned an assassination of Bush Sr, eh.

Read the ENTIRE post, tommy. Eh? (Do you understand, "MAY have been part of that motivation?")

http://ipad.aol.com/article/2014/09/06/o......3D525773



Immigration advocates blasted Obama and Senate Democrats over the decision, saying both have shown a lack of political will.

"We are bitterly disappointed in the president and we are bitterly disappointed in the Senate Democrats," said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice. "We advocates didn't make the reform promise; we just made the mistake of believing it. The president and Senate Democrats have chosen politics over people, the status quo over solving real problems."

Cristina Jimenez, managing director of United We Dream, said the decision was "another slap to the face of the Latino and immigrant community."

"Where we have demanded leadership and courage from both Democrats and the president, we've received nothing but broken promises and a lack of political backbone," she said.


http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-obama-delay-immigration-action-135104793--politics.html;_ylt=A0SO8wwpLgtUVpYAzYzBGOd_;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ZzUxNW83BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1RBVVMwNjVfMQ--


I imagine they think that as a reformer, he makes a great politician.

I know you don't claim to be a Republican, Lobo, but I bet that if you were in Congress you would regularly caucus the the right libertarian elements of the party. Is there ONE subtantial thing the President has done that you have supported?

I can't think of one substantial thing he has done worthy of suppkrt.

Also do you know why they have to keep rebranding things and changing names? Why they have to call them "dreamers" and not illegal immigrants? It is because if they told the truth they would get nowhere.

If the president ran on what his record IS and what he has done he would never have been elected. He has gone from hope and change to being one of the most partisan presidents ever. He wanted to work together only when pushing his agenda or when he could share blame. Instead of using his historic presidency for the betterment of all he pushed his reshape the country ideology.

Sure they vowed to make him a one term president but isn't that their job? Wasn't that what democrats did to Bush with the help of th media? Heck the media even said it was their job to help president Obama succede. Is that really the job of the media?

At one point the president said something like I won so that is it. Not really a guy you can work with. Said at one point that they drove us into the ditch so he didn't want to hear from them how to fix things. Working with him amounts to no more than capitulation.

Spin it all you like it was a wasted opportunity by a guy who had a ton of political capitol to spend. His ideology rules him.

I know you feel that way Danny, and you know that I disagree with you. Sorry that you don't think the Fair Pay for Women Act or any other of the MANY accomplishments listed earlier in this thread, was substantial.

But I was asking Lobo.

Certainly. As a few for instances:

* His opposition to DOMA (and his use of the DOJ in conjunction with that opposition)
* His stated support of gay marriage, though I think it was poor leadership from a liberal congressional scholar to take the McCain/Palin position until immediately after public support for gay marriage passed the 50% mark. Neverthess, he got there eventually.
* Student loan reform.
* I think his actions in the auto industry have been a net plus.

But the suggestion that I criticize him because I'm essentially a conservative, or a libertarian, is simply false. Read Landmark's post about his broken promises. Is there a more liberal poster in NVMS? Do you think Landmark is getting his information from Fox News? I was neutral on Obama in 2008. I didn't vote for him, but I didn't vote for McCain, either. I simply didn't have a position on which of them would be better. I WAS quite vocal in my opposition to those who acted like he was the second coming of Jesus based on nothing more than good campaign speeches, but I was neutral on Obama as president.

Moreover, as to his position and perception with respect to immigration, one of my former practice areas was immigration, and I am a former member of the American Immigration Lawyers Associations. Moreover, I did pro bono work at a legal clinic in an area that's a virtual hub for immigration, both legal and illegal. I still have more than a few friends who are attorneys in the practice area (and die-hard immigration rights liberals, as almost everyone in the field is). I'm still on immigration law mailing lists. If you think he's some sort of hero to the immigration community, I have to tell you that based on my personal experience, you're mistaken. They had high hopes and high expectations, and they've turned in a steady 5-year arc to disappointment and cynicism. To the extent that there's a general problem the Democratic party faces going forward, it's that Latino support for the party has dwindled considerably over the last fives years. That's not to say they're all flocking to the Republican party, of course. But the general attitude that I perceive in my connections to immigration law is pretty much, "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss."

Thanks for the clarification. (No credit for getting bid Laden?)

And to Danny-

And "dreamers" is hardly a rebranding, as it doesn't apply to all undocumented immigrants. It ONLY applies to those who have lived here most of their lives and were brought here by parents or relatives. They have been born and raised in the US and, but for their place of birth, identify themselves as Americans.