After only two days in office, the top priority of Obama is the rights of Terrorists who only want to kill Americans. 

Yeah…I feel SO much safer!


Tags: ,

43 Responses to “Terrorists”

  1. futiledemocracy Says:

    Contrary to what the Right Wing of America thinks, the rest of the planet, including here in Britain view the torture by Americans at places like Guantanamo as the catalyst for hatred toward the West. It’s the Right Wing’s expansive nature across the planet, destroying anything in it’s way, calling any one who disagrees a “terrorist” which leads to anger and hatred toward the West.
    Obama understands you cannot go around the World preaching Western Morals whilst simultaneously torturing those who haven’t even been convicted of a crime, it’s hypocritical and it’s no better than those who seek to harm us in the West.
    The past eight year reign of war, hatred, intolerance, fear and violence is policy that has caused the uncertainty and created a much more unsafe World.
    Obama has been in office for two days. Give the man a chance!

  2. Dingo C. Says:

    Oh, by “torture” you mean by allowing them better standards of living then they enjoyed in their own country? Please. It’s all relative. When there is a major attack and thousands die and it could have been prevented with a little “pressure” to get information, don’t come crying because you lost a loved one.

    Besides, our constitution does not forbid torture.

  3. Gwen S. Says:

    Dingo, I don’t know about that but I do know that the Democrats sure didn’t give George W. a chance or any sort of “honeymoon”..they started attacking right out the gate!

    Futile, so, regardless of what Obama does, we should “give him a chance”? I think the article the Roland posted from Juan Williams would be worth your time to read.

  4. Robin Says:

    Hey futile – if it wasn’t “torture” at gitmo you would find something else to hate about America. I should care about this scum when their comrades behead American soldiers and journalists and televise it. And you are worried about “torture.” Please.

  5. Roland Says:

    Actually, Gwen, Dingo is correct. Our Constitution does not forbid torture.

    (I assume you are the same Gwen S. as Gwen Stacy?)

  6. Josh Brandt Says:

    I would hardly call water boarding torture.

  7. Dillon Sorensen Says:

    The Geneva Convention does.

    Josh – are you kidding me?

  8. Jonathan Says:

    It’s not about them, it’s about us. Our values do not allow us to torture anyone, be he Nazi, terrorist, whoever. Gitmo is a symbol that reminds us that we betrayed those values, and closing it is part of the process of leaving those mistakes behind.

    We considered water boarding torture when we convicted Japanese soldiers of war crimes for waterboarding us in WWII


  9. Dude Says:

    I agree that we should not torture unless dire need. The example is brought up of a terrorist who knows about a nuke or something that would kill thousands is not millions of people. I would support torture in that instance.

    However, as was pointed out, torture is not forbidden by our laws.

  10. Gwen S. Says:

    Jonathan, are you ok that some of the terrorists who were housed at Gitmo and released have gone back and killed? Have gone back and led others to kill? If a guard kills an inmate in a New York prison do you close the prison or arrest the guard?

  11. Tony Says:

    Dude, torture is wrong no matter what!!!!

  12. Robin Says:

    “Our values do not allow us to torture anyone, be he Nazi, terrorist, whoever. ”

    That will only be plausible when the enemy has the same values.

  13. Gwen S. Says:

    Aren’t you glad that Obama, obviously, cares more about Terrorists who kill Americans then he does for innocent, unborn children? Those of you who don’t support torture, you support the murder of the unborn? Who can you reconcile that?

    My, I bet you people who voted for him are just welling up with pride about his latest decision to allow more federal dollars to go to funding Abortion. What a great man!

    It’s amazing that this man, who 50 years ago would have been denied a seat at certain resturants, is now President and yet HE denies LIFE to human beings.

    If I voted for him, I would be filled with shame but, then again, many who did vote for him already knew about his regard for human life when he even supports killing babies who survive abortions and they still voted for him.

    I read that George Stephanopoulos cried when Obama was sworn in. I wonder, George, do you also cry for the unborn who are murdered?

  14. Robin Says:

    Amen Gwen. It is the true hyprocisy of the left.

  15. Roland Says:

    I’ll second that Amen!! 🙂

    “It’s amazing that this man, who 50 years ago would have been denied a seat at certain resturants, is now President and yet HE denies LIFE to human beings.”

    Great, great point!!

    Gwen, you need to post at my site more often. I get busy and can’t always jump in to comment….thanks for taking up the slack! (you too Robin!).

  16. Jonathan Says:


    Torture is illegal since, for example, since it violates various aspects of the bill of rights, Geneva Conventions, etc.


    Closing Gitmo doesn’t mean the evil guys get to go free, and I agree that the prevalence of abortion is another example of us not living consistent with our values. Also, I assume he probably will reverse the Mexico City Policy, but he hasn’t done it yet.


    To act consistent with our values is always the goal, not just when our enemies share those values. Just because my enemy is evil does not justify us in embracing evil ourselves. By acting consistent with our values we have hope lead by example to make the world a better place rather than following our enemies into the pit…and as someone said recently said, if you don’t stick by your values when it’s difficult, they aren’t values…they are hobbies.

  17. Dude Says:

    Jonathan, actually, the 8th amendment forbids “cruel and unusal punishment”. Punishment for a crime is totally different from torture to obtain information.

    The “leading by example” argument has really worn thin. It’s the “if we don’t torture, then our enemies won’t”. Obviously, regardless of what we do, they will torture, kill and torture some more.

  18. Gwen S. Says:

    I don’t see Obama leading by example with the abortion issue. Again, I have to ask, how can you justify and be proud of his having more respect for Terrorists then he does for the unborn? It just breaks my heart thinking of this.

  19. Roland Says:

    Yes, where is the example?

    The Washington Post has an interesting article today on how Obama left a loophole in that he didn’t outright ban water boarding. Interesting.

  20. Jonathan Says:


    It’s not: “if we don’t torture, then our enemies won’t”

    It’s: “if we torture then we have know moral standing to object when our enemies do it. we don’t torture because it is wrong.”


    Just because I wish our society had more respect for the lives of the unborn doesn’t mean I can’t be glad when we reject torture as a tool to be utilized by civilized nations.

    About abortion, I don’t think the Republicans will do anything to significantly restrict abortion because that would be political suicide. This is supported by the fact that they recently controlled the White House and Congress and had a balanced if not conservative Supreme Court yet made no concerted effort to address the abortion issue. In my opinion, the only politically practical means to significantly reduce abortions is to do things like provide more support for poor and unwed mothers and poor families both pre- and post-natal and thereby address the economic problems that lead some to consider abortion as their only viable option, provide better education and access to contraception, etc. Because I think the Obama is more likely to implement such policies, I would have voted for Obama over McCain even if I determined my vote on only this issue (which I don’t).

  21. Jonathan Says:


    Please post a link to the WaPo article. My understanding was that the executive order limited the CIA to the use of techniques in the Army Field Manual and that waterboarding is not in that category. They did indicate that other techniques could be approved in the future (i.e. added to the field manual). However, it’s safe to assume that waterboarding will not be one of them.

  22. Dude Says:

    Actually, Roland, it was the Wall Street Journal:


  23. Gwen S. Says:

    So, Jonathan, murder is ok as long as we are trying to prevent it? As long as we enact policies that help curb it? Regardless, it’s still wrong and what Obama did today just shows the hypocrite he is esp when he is putting the lives of Terrorists ABOVE the lives of the unborn.

    Jonathan, you talk about moral standing yet you feel Obama does right in protecting the living standards of killers and not the lives of the unborn.

  24. Robin Says:

    Oh yes, Obama is going to implement policies regarding abortion. He just signed a bill for us taxpayers to pay for abortions in other countries. That’s real foreign aid. Let’s help others kill more babies. That will help stop abortion. Drink some more kool-aid.

  25. Jonathan Says:

    I think I’ll have a beer instead.


    The words you’re putting in my mouth are not at all what I’m saying. Are you trying at all to understand and fairly represent my point of view? I understand that it’s easier to mostly ignore what I’m saying and just rail against a caricature of it, but that’s not very helpful for fostering productive discussion.

    It’s entirely possible that I’m wrong, but my assessment of the situation is that neither Republican nor Democrat will significantly restrict access to abortions…while the Democrats are the ones most likely to foster reduction via other means. That is in no way saying that I think abortion is OK or murder is OK or that I’m glad Obama reversed the Mexico City Policy late this afternoon. You know, between 2000 and 2006 the Republican-controlled White House, Republican-controlled Congress, and Supreme court did nothing to significantly address/reduce abortions (I don’t include the partial birth abortion ban in that category because it represented only ~ 0.17 % of abortions in the US in 2000) yet they passed and signed the CAN-SPAM Act. I guess they put canning spam above the lives of the unborn, right? No, I’m pretty sure that’s an oversimplification.


    Thanks for the link. I had seen that article and was wondering if it was the one Roland meant. That analysis doesn’t make sense to me. What Obama has done (1-declare that we will follow the army field manual and 2-indicate that we will examine the army field manual to determine if other tactics should be added) seems reasonable. It doesn’t seem wishy-washy or trying to have it both ways to me. It’s also not accurately summarized as “[leaving] a loophole in that he didn’t outright ban water boarding…”

  26. Robin Says:

    What exactly, I repeat exactly, will Obama do specifically to reduce abortions. Lifting all restrictions will not reduce, but encourage abortions. Sex education in public schools teaches birth control options so that is already being done. What is this magic solution he will give to reduce abortions that is not already being done? The link below is interesting.

  27. Jim D. Says:

    It is conservatives who came up with waiting periods. It is conservatives who did away with taxpayer funding of abortions. It is conservatives who came up with parental notification laws. It is conservatives who have tried to make partial-birth abortion illegal. It is conservatives who have come up with any and every restriction on abortion.

    Democrats (including Obama) are against every one of those things. Democrats want abortion to be free (government paid) and completely accessible with absolutely no restrictions. Obama is even in favor of making sure that infants who survive abortions are denied medical treatment and left to die.

    I’m sick of hearing this stupid argument (“Well, the GOP didn’t do very much about abortion”) from Christians who just want to justify their support of a pro-abortion candidate (and don’t be fooled by Obama’s double-talk. He is PRO-abortion). The GOP did a hell of a lot more to stop abortion than liberals would ever do. Abortions went down under Bill Clinton because of improved birth control methods, not because he made abortion more accessible.

    Abortion should be illegal. Period. Those who have abortions and those who perform abortions should be locked up. Period.

  28. Robin Says:

    Amen – amen.

  29. Josh Brandt Says:

    There is one fact we seem to be overlooking. If terrorists know that we are closing down Gitmo, it shows them we’re weak, and we don’t mean business. Knowing we don’t mean business, they will have no problem attacking more. They’re gonna think “If we get caught we’re going to be treated well instead of being punished.”. That would encourage me to want to attack much much more. I would want to punish them, not take them somewhere were they have more rights.

  30. Dude Says:

    Remember as well that Bin Laden said that it was because of our weakness, our lack of response to the terrorist actions in the 90’s, that we would be easy pickings. They love Obama because, again, they know a Democrat is in office which equals weakness.

    Jim D. made some great points. Bush did SOMETHING. Obama not only did nothing but is going the other way. I think Gwen S. was just pointing out that Jonathan, in all his huffing and puffing about morals and gitmo, is sounding very hypocritical when he doesn’t react the same way concerning Obamas love for Abortion.

  31. Jonathan Says:

    Dude and Josh,

    Before 9/11, neither Republicans nor Democrats seemed to be very vigorous in pursuing terrorists. Now they both are committed to “mean business” (we killed ~ 20 in a missile attack in Pakistan yesterday: link). I consider abandoning your principles (e.g., that torture is abhorrent) in the face of your enemy to be weakness.

    Jim D.,

    My point is that none of the examples you listed will make a major impact on the abortion rate. Regardless of whether or not abortion should be illegal, it seems highly unlikely to me that it will ever be illegal again. If you think criminalization is do-able, I think you’ve mis-judged the situation. Therefore, I’m interested in other, more practical means to reduce the abortion rate. Maybe there are none, but I don’t think that is true.


    It’s called an “ad hominem” argument:

    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

    Bringing up abortion in a discussion about torture, calling me a “huffing and puffing” hypocrite, accusing me of “just want[ing] to justify [my] support of a pro-abortion candidate”…this is all ad hominem and not relevant to whether or not it is moral to torture.

    By the way, Obama does not “love” abortion; he believes a woman has a right to choose but that is not the same as viewing abortions as desirable.

  32. Jonathan Says:

    By the way, the reversal of the Mexico City Policy does not change the fact that the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act bans the use of aid money to promote abortion overseas.

  33. Dude Says:

    Before 9/11? How can you include Democrats in that? All the attacks before 9/11 were on Clintons watch and he did nothing. Oh..sorry…he lobbed some missiles at a factory to get the attention off him when he was testifying in the Monica thing. You cannot lump Republicans in that “do nothing” excuse.

    The right to choose is pro-abortion no matter how you slice it. If he believed in the value of human life he would not be for the right to choose.

  34. Jonathan Says:

    Now that explains it. Clinton was too distracted by the Monica thing to read the presidential daily briefing from August 2001 titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US” mentioning bin laden’s desire to hijack US aircraft. It’s definitely all the Democrats fault. That much is clear.

  35. Dude Says:

    That’s right. Bush should have rushed back to the White House, started to close the boarders, started to screen Arab passengers, started to dig into a certain lap top which the courts said we couldn’t….and this would have been perfectly alright with the Liberals who cruicified Bush for trying to do AFTER 9/11.

    Jonathan, there is a big difference between a vague and broad memo and not doing something and NOT acting after an actual attack which, in turn, made the U.S. appear weak.

  36. Jonathan Says:

    Yes, Dude, it’s all the Democrats fault. The administration that was in power and received a “vague and broad” memo describing the method of attack that was employed a month later obviously shares none of the responsibility.

    By the way, you said earlier that al Qaeda loves Obama. They’ve got a funny way of showing it:

  37. Dude Says:

    I don’t think I said that Jonathan. Also, I don’t think I said it’s all the Democrats fault. Also we were not talking about preventing 9/11, you brought up pursuing terrorists.

    Yes, I agree though. That memo was really detailed. I mean, if I saw a memo that said “Paris Hilton vows to go shopping” I would alert a specific mall in Dallas, TX to be on alert.

  38. Jonathan Says:


    You might want to read back over the thread of comments.

    This is the statement I was referring to:


    Remember as well that Bin Laden said that it was because of our weakness, our lack of response to the terrorist actions in the 90’s, that we would be easy pickings. They love Obama because, again, they know a Democrat is in office which equals weakness.

    On the other point, I may have been misunderstanding you, but from this paragraph:

    Before 9/11? How can you include Democrats in that? All the attacks before 9/11 were on Clintons watch and he did nothing. Oh..sorry…he lobbed some missiles at a factory to get the attention off him when he was testifying in the Monica thing. You cannot lump Republicans in that “do nothing” excuse.

    I (mis?)understood you to be saying that only the Democrats have responded inadequately to the terrorist threat before 9/11…that the lack of response from Reagan to the Beirut bombings, for example, could not possibly have had a negative impact…made America appear weak. I’m not sure I buy the “appearance of weakness” argument anyway. If, in comparison to al-Qaeda, the terrorists thinks the USA is the weak one…they’re absolutely delusional (big surprise there). I also think there is a significant danger of over-reacting, of responding in ways that don’t make us stronger and them weaker.

    I’m certainly not saying that 9/11 should have been prevented because of the existence of that intelligence, but it might have been if it had been taken seriously…if the intelligence agencies’ many warnings in the Jun-Aug timeframe of a major al-Qaeda attack had resulted in action at the highest levels in the administration. I certainly don’t blame them or hold them solely responsible, but I do believe they share some of the responsibility. I wonder if we would be as understanding of our failure to act on that intelligence if a Democrat had been in office.

    And, actually, I didn’t bring up pursuing terrorists…you did in this comment:


    Remember as well that Bin Laden said that it was because of our weakness, our lack of response to the terrorist actions in the 90’s, that we would be easy pickings. They love Obama because, again, they know a Democrat is in office which equals weakness.

    In response, I was simply saying that both Dems and Reps under-appreciated the problem and responded inadequately before 9/11 and that both are committed to responding adequately now.

  39. Dingo C. Says:

    Interesting in that the Defense Department states that at leaste 61 former Gitmo detainees have returned to their life as terrorists after being released from “Club Gitmo”.

    Now nice. Ann Coulter had an article a few months ago how tax payers paid for a detainee to get a artifical leg. He was then released and ended up killing some British soldiers and himself.

    Great to see our tax dollars at work…for the terrorists!

  40. Jonathan Says:

    18 are confirmed, 43 are suspected of “returning to the fight”.

    Closing Gitmo isn’t about letting the bad guys go free. It’s about hanging on to the bad guys but doing so legally.

  41. Roland Says:

    Speaking of the Abortion issue – I noticed that Obama did another reverse on Bush and wants to allow states to make the decisions on fuel emissions. Interesting. He thinks states should decide this yet they should not decide the abortion issue?

    Another funny thing is that Govco wants to help the auto industry…how in the world does it help them when they have to make cars to conform to 50 different state standards? What a joke.

  42. Gwen S. Says:

    Great point Roland!! Jonathan, why are you so into doing things legally for the bad guys yet so flippant about preventing murder?

  43. Jonathan Says:


    It’s nothing strange…the rule of law is foundational.

    I’m not flippant about abortion or terrorism or torture. Would you like to indicate what I’ve said that you think is flippant?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: