Speaking Of Torture, This Will Drive The Left Nuts
Captain Ed and Allah @ Hot Air have both grabbed a hold of one of our favorite subjects in the war on terror--Torture. Captain Ed brings up the point that Alan Dershowitz (yes THAT Dershowitz) noted that there is a serious double standard amongst the Left regarding the use of torture. Allah has the audio of a recent interview with Bill Clinton where he is talking about torture. Here is the money quote in that interview, and it is going to leave the Left howling:
CLINTON: Let's take the best case here. You picked up somebody that you know is the number two aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States, or a European capital, sometime in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it.Now, that's the clearest example.
And you think you can only get it out of this guy shootin' him full of some drug, or water-boarding him, or otherwise working him over. If they really believe that scenario is likely to occur, let them come forward with an alternative proposal. We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don't need blanket advanced approval for blanket torture. They could draw a statute much more narrowly which would permit the president to make a finding, in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding would be submitted--even if after the fact--to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ...
... If they really believe, when the time comes, that the only way they can get a reliable piece of information is to beat it out of somebody, or put a drug in their body and talk it out of them, then they can present it to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or some other court, just on the same circumstances that we do with wiretaps: Post-facto. ...
... The only case I can imagine where 100% of the people would agree with me, is under the circumstances I just outlined. That is, I think you'd have a very hard time finding somebody to say 'If you knew who this guy was a top aide of al-Qaeda, if you knew there was going to be an attack in three days, if you knew that person knew, then I'd like to see the world stand up and say that the person who obtained that information from him should be sent to jail.
Bill Clinton, ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, stating that if such a scenario came to pass that torture would be an acceptable form of intelligence extraction. That comes from Allah, and you can listen to the audio via the link above. It is quite telling, to say the least, to hear a man whose own party was screaming about habeas corpus rights for terrorists and the approval of "torture" in the Detainee Treatment Act just a couple of short weeks ago.
Which brings me to Captain Ed who spotted this from the BBC. It appears that one-third of of the worldwide survey conducted by the BBC approve the use of "some" torture:
Nearly a third of people worldwide back the use of torture in prisons in some circumstances, a BBC survey suggests.
Although 59% were opposed to torture, 29% thought it acceptable to use some degree of torture to combat terrorism.
While most polled in the US are against torture, opposition there is less robust than in Europe and elsewhere.
More than 27,000 people in 25 countries were asked if torture would be acceptable if it could provide information to save innocent lives.
Some 36% of those questioned in the US agreed that this use of torture was acceptable, while 58% were unwilling to compromise on human rights.
The percentage favouring torture in certain cases makes it one of the highest of all the countries polled.
The majority of those questioned in the BBC World Service poll - 19 of the 25 countries surveyed - agree that clear rules against torture in prisons should be maintained because it is immoral and its use would weaken human rights standards.
"The dominant view around the world is that terrorism does not warrant bending the rules against torture," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), whose organisation helped conduct the survey. ...
... But countries that face political violence are more likely to accept the idea that some degree of torture is permissible because of the extreme threat posed by terrorists.
Israel has the largest percentage of those polled endorsing the use of a degree of torture on prisoners, with 43% saying they agreed that some degree of torture should be allowed.
Any Asylum reader know why this is one of our favorite subjects to discuss? Because we are realists. We live in a real world where a very real enemy wants us really dead. Those that oppose the idea of ANY torture, whatsoever, is not a realist. Yes, we stand for human rights, but I contend that a terrorist will not grant you the same leeway. They will not abstain from torturing you if they catch you. And for those that say that terrorists do not torture, explain that to the families of those beheaded by al-Qaeda.
Torture, no matter how deplorable it is to many people, should never be taken off the table as a method of extracting information. And for precisely the sort of scenario laid out by former President Clinton. Does anyone think, for the tiniest of moments, that if there was another attack on America, something similar to 9/11, and it comes out that we had a suspect in custody that had working knowledge of the plan and we did not use EVERY means of extracting information from him, that the citizenry would forgive the government? Neither do I. We will see Hillary standing up on the floor of the Senate, again, demanding to know 'what did he know and when did he know it' to the president. The populace would be incensed.
We do not advocate torture for the average Mohammed-nobody in custody. But if it is a top guy--an al-Zarqawi or al-Zawahiri--you bet your @$$ we would endorse torturing the H*ll out of him to get whatever we need to know to prevent any sort of plots that are unfolding. See, those on the Left, or those that stand up for human rights to a detriment to society as a whole, do not understand the concept that such folly will hang everyone.
Mark Steyn, in his new book America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It explains that the Muslim domination of the West will result from two simple things. First, it IS about the demographics, stupid, and second, it is about their general attitude. See, Old Europe has become far too comfy in their easy chairs, watching their Tivo's, to really care what is ahppening around them. There are nations all over Europe that are considering the inclusion of shari'a laws into their own laws. We only need to reference recent events in France to see that Europe is wholly unprepared for what is being unleashed on it's shores.
Our enemies caterwaul when released that they were tortured. They have no clue what torture is. And it is an option that needs to be on the table. It's use could prove invaluable in the event that we do discover another attack is coming, and we have someone in custody who knows a lot more than they are letting on.
Marcie
Captain Ed and Allah @ Hot Air have both grabbed a hold of one of our favorite subjects in the war on terror--Torture. Captain Ed brings up the point that Alan Dershowitz (yes THAT Dershowitz) noted that there is a serious double standard amongst the Left regarding the use of torture. Allah has the audio of a recent interview with Bill Clinton where he is talking about torture. Here is the money quote in that interview, and it is going to leave the Left howling:
CLINTON: Let's take the best case here. You picked up somebody that you know is the number two aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States, or a European capital, sometime in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it.Now, that's the clearest example.
And you think you can only get it out of this guy shootin' him full of some drug, or water-boarding him, or otherwise working him over. If they really believe that scenario is likely to occur, let them come forward with an alternative proposal. We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don't need blanket advanced approval for blanket torture. They could draw a statute much more narrowly which would permit the president to make a finding, in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding would be submitted--even if after the fact--to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ...
... If they really believe, when the time comes, that the only way they can get a reliable piece of information is to beat it out of somebody, or put a drug in their body and talk it out of them, then they can present it to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or some other court, just on the same circumstances that we do with wiretaps: Post-facto. ...
... The only case I can imagine where 100% of the people would agree with me, is under the circumstances I just outlined. That is, I think you'd have a very hard time finding somebody to say 'If you knew who this guy was a top aide of al-Qaeda, if you knew there was going to be an attack in three days, if you knew that person knew, then I'd like to see the world stand up and say that the person who obtained that information from him should be sent to jail.
Bill Clinton, ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, stating that if such a scenario came to pass that torture would be an acceptable form of intelligence extraction. That comes from Allah, and you can listen to the audio via the link above. It is quite telling, to say the least, to hear a man whose own party was screaming about habeas corpus rights for terrorists and the approval of "torture" in the Detainee Treatment Act just a couple of short weeks ago.
Which brings me to Captain Ed who spotted this from the BBC. It appears that one-third of of the worldwide survey conducted by the BBC approve the use of "some" torture:
Nearly a third of people worldwide back the use of torture in prisons in some circumstances, a BBC survey suggests.
Although 59% were opposed to torture, 29% thought it acceptable to use some degree of torture to combat terrorism.
While most polled in the US are against torture, opposition there is less robust than in Europe and elsewhere.
More than 27,000 people in 25 countries were asked if torture would be acceptable if it could provide information to save innocent lives.
Some 36% of those questioned in the US agreed that this use of torture was acceptable, while 58% were unwilling to compromise on human rights.
The percentage favouring torture in certain cases makes it one of the highest of all the countries polled.
The majority of those questioned in the BBC World Service poll - 19 of the 25 countries surveyed - agree that clear rules against torture in prisons should be maintained because it is immoral and its use would weaken human rights standards.
"The dominant view around the world is that terrorism does not warrant bending the rules against torture," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), whose organisation helped conduct the survey. ...
... But countries that face political violence are more likely to accept the idea that some degree of torture is permissible because of the extreme threat posed by terrorists.
Israel has the largest percentage of those polled endorsing the use of a degree of torture on prisoners, with 43% saying they agreed that some degree of torture should be allowed.
Any Asylum reader know why this is one of our favorite subjects to discuss? Because we are realists. We live in a real world where a very real enemy wants us really dead. Those that oppose the idea of ANY torture, whatsoever, is not a realist. Yes, we stand for human rights, but I contend that a terrorist will not grant you the same leeway. They will not abstain from torturing you if they catch you. And for those that say that terrorists do not torture, explain that to the families of those beheaded by al-Qaeda.
Torture, no matter how deplorable it is to many people, should never be taken off the table as a method of extracting information. And for precisely the sort of scenario laid out by former President Clinton. Does anyone think, for the tiniest of moments, that if there was another attack on America, something similar to 9/11, and it comes out that we had a suspect in custody that had working knowledge of the plan and we did not use EVERY means of extracting information from him, that the citizenry would forgive the government? Neither do I. We will see Hillary standing up on the floor of the Senate, again, demanding to know 'what did he know and when did he know it' to the president. The populace would be incensed.
We do not advocate torture for the average Mohammed-nobody in custody. But if it is a top guy--an al-Zarqawi or al-Zawahiri--you bet your @$$ we would endorse torturing the H*ll out of him to get whatever we need to know to prevent any sort of plots that are unfolding. See, those on the Left, or those that stand up for human rights to a detriment to society as a whole, do not understand the concept that such folly will hang everyone.
Mark Steyn, in his new book America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It explains that the Muslim domination of the West will result from two simple things. First, it IS about the demographics, stupid, and second, it is about their general attitude. See, Old Europe has become far too comfy in their easy chairs, watching their Tivo's, to really care what is ahppening around them. There are nations all over Europe that are considering the inclusion of shari'a laws into their own laws. We only need to reference recent events in France to see that Europe is wholly unprepared for what is being unleashed on it's shores.
Our enemies caterwaul when released that they were tortured. They have no clue what torture is. And it is an option that needs to be on the table. It's use could prove invaluable in the event that we do discover another attack is coming, and we have someone in custody who knows a lot more than they are letting on.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home