O'Reilly again suggested employing Saddam's methods in Iraq
SUMMARY: Fox News host Bill O'Reilly again suggested that Iraq should be run as it was under Saddam Hussein, stating: "Saddam was able to control Iraq, as you know, and defeat insurgencies against him. The new Iraqi government can do the same, but it needs to get much tougher." O'Reilly also declared that the American Civil Liberties Union, the BBC, and Air America Radio "are helping the terrorists."
On the June 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly again suggested that Iraq should be run as it was under Saddam Hussein, stating: "Saddam was able to control Iraq, as you know, and defeat insurgencies against him. The new Iraqi government can do the same, but it needs to get much tougher." In particular, O'Reilly suggested the Iraqi government "declare martial law in areas controlled by insurgents" and repeated his suggestion that Iraq should establish a policy of "shoot-on-sight curfews." In addition, O'Reilly declared that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the BBC, and Air America Radio "are helping the terrorists." Later in the program, nationally syndicated radio host Laura Ingraham distorted content on the website of international human rights organization Amnesty International and confirmed O'Reilly's suggestion that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA), and former President Jimmy Carter are also "helping the enemy."
As Media Matters for America noted, O'Reilly declared on the June 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show that if he were the president of Iraq, he would run the country "just like Saddam ran it," by establishing curfews and shooting violators "right between the eyes." On the June 20 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly similarly argued in favor of adopting Saddam's tactics while reasoning that a "shoot first and ask questions later" policy in Iraq is necessary "because this is a war, and that's what you do in war." O'Reilly made the remarks during a discussion with Fox News Military analyst retired Col. David Hunt, who agreed that a harsher approach was needed in Iraq:
HUNT: It's time to stop this nonsense, politically and militarily. When you close these borders, we know what to do. We need to leave their dead bodies on the street. And we need to clean this place up and get Iraqis to clean this place up.
Much of the program was focused on, as O'Reilly announced when he introduced the show, "nam[ing] those we believe are helping the terrorists." O'Reilly immediately asserted that "[t]he ACLU and the BBC head the list" and later stated that the ACLU "opposes just about every anti-terror strategy" and the BBC "consistently slant[s] the Iraq War coverage and portray[s] the coalition as villains." Continuing, O'Reilly declared, "The vile Air America Radio network does the same thing." Earlier that day, on the June 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly similarly accused the ACLU of "rooting for the enemy" and stated: "There is not a better friend to Al Qaeda in the world than the ACLU, and that's the truth. OK?"
O'Reilly hosted Hunt and Fox News analyst retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney to discuss the reported brutal killing of two American soldiers in Iraq. McInerney accused " 'ACE' Democrats or 'ACE' liberals" of "aid[ing] and comforting the enemy." Apparently blaming the media for the way the Iraq war is being fought, O'Reilly asserted, "We're not doing everything we can do to win" the war "because we got The New York Times and all of these other people" reporting "every time we make a mistake." Hunt agreed that the press reports only "mistake[s]" made during the course of the war, stating, "There won't be any outrage in any paper in the country about these two great guys from the 101st [Airborne] were mutilated."
Although she acknowledged that Amnesty International has "has done some great work," Ingraham suggested that the human rights organization was not concerned with brutality inflicted upon Americans because it was too busy "focusing on" the treatment of detainees and "World Cup soccer":
INGRAHAM: I went to Amnesty International's website right before the show, Bill, their international website, their American version of it. Not a single mention of the soldiers being tortured in Iraq. You know what was mentioned? Guantánamo Bay and U.S. rendition policy and World Cup soccer. Those are the -- that's what they're focusing on.
In fact, Amnesty International's website used the World Cup soccer tournament as a forum to offer "statistics" on how each country participating in the games "scores" on human rights issues: "As the World Cup gets underway, no red cards are being handed out for the many women and girls being stalked, raped, sexually abused and harassed, trafficked for sexual exploitation, beaten or killed."
Agreeing with Ingraham's suggestion that Amnesty International is unconcerned with abuse of American soldiers, O'Reilly repeated his allegation that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) "is the reason that the three Al Qaeda suspects committed suicide" at Guantánamo Bay. O'Reilly previously claimed the ICRC's privacy concerns for the inmates at Guantánamo Bay "may have allowed the suicides."
At O'Reilly's prompting, Ingraham affirmed that several prominent Democrats were, as O'Reilly suggested, "helping the enemy." According to Ingraham, Dean "embolden[s]" the enemy; Murtha acts as a "recruiting tool" for terrorists; and Carter "hurts us" by advocating against torture.
From the June 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: The O'Reilly Factor is on. Tonight: two American soldiers brutally mutilated and murdered by terrorists in Iraq. How should the U.S. respond? We will name those we believe are helping the terrorists. The ACLU and the BBC head the list.
[...]
O'REILLY: "Talking Points" believes the Bush administration has to stop being defensive about waging war. At this point, the new Iraqi government should declare martial law in areas controlled by insurgents. That means anyone can be arrested and shoot-on-sight curfews.
Saddam was able to control Iraq, as you know, and defeat insurgencies against him. The new Iraqi government can do the same, but it needs to get much tougher.
The Bush administration also needs to begin challenging those who are helping the enemy. The ACLU, for example, opposes just about every anti-terror strategy. This organization should be exposed.
The BBC also helps the enemy by consistently slanting the Iraq war coverage and portraying the coalition as villains. The vile Air America Radio network does the same thing.
This may surprise you, but I don't consider dissenting from the Iraq war to be helping the enemy. Congressman Murtha, for example, is acting on his beliefs. He made a mistake by convicting the Marines in Haditha before the evidence was presented, but dissent makes America stronger.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right, Colonel Hunt, I think we're at a tipping point here in the Iraq war. I think if America does not stop being on the defensive, and I mean militarily and in the war of public opinion, that we gotta get out of there. We either have to fight the war and win the war, or get the hell out.
HUNT: Yeah, I totally agree. We take the gloves off. Military leaders, take the gloves off. The soldiers know what they do. Get out of the way. Politicians, get out of the way.
We've got soldiers. We've got Moqtada al-Sadr with 16,000 in militia. He also controls 32 people -- 32 seats in the parliament. We've had two soldiers, as you just mentioned, mutilated. And out of respect for their families, we're not describing all the other body parts that were hurt.
Both the general and I had brothers killed in Vietnam. It's time to stop this nonsense, politically and militarily. When you close these borders, we know what to do. We need to leave dead -- we need to leave their dead bodies on the street. And we need to clean this place up and get the Iraqis to clean this place up. Our guys have done a great thing there. They've done an awful lot.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right, do you believe it's a tipping point, general?
McINERNEY: Yes, I do, Bill. And it's a tipping point in the will of the American people. We can't lose over there militarily. It's the will of the American people. And I call them "ACE" Democrats or "ACE" liberals -- aid and comforting the enemy.
[...]
O'REILLY: So, I don't understand, general, why we don't have martial law in Ramadi, why we don't have shoot-on-sight curfews, why we don't have action that basically says, look, we're going to shoot first and ask questions later because this is a war. And that's what you do in war. All right?
We didn't fight World War II this way. We didn't fight the Civil War this way or any other war except Vietnam. We're fighting the same way we fought in Vietnam, Colonel Hunt. You know it. You were there. OK?
We're not doing everything we can do to win, because we got The New York Times and all of these other people, every time we make a mistake, bang! There it is. And CNN is running with it. And we're the bad guy. It's got to stop. It's got to stop.
HUNT: There's no outrage at all. We'll have 57 stories of Abu Ghraib, which we admit there were some problems. There won't be any outrage in any paper in the country about these two great guys from the 101st were mutilated.
[...]
INGRAHAM: The line is hard to draw. But I think one group in particular, International ANSWER, you've tackled them before on your show, the big antiwar, Bush-hating, America-bashing group that organizes all of the antiwar rallies and also dabbles with other causes as well. I mean, groups like International ANSWER have really morphed into permanent arms of organizations that just want to blame America for, really everything that's going badly in the world. In other words, the problem, Bill --
O'REILLY: People don't know that organization --
INGRAHAM: -- is not the terrorists.
O'REILLY: People don't know them. Are they -- is that Code Pink?
INGRAHAM: No, no, no. International ANSWER is kind of the umbrella under which all of these other organizations gather. I know one organization you have heard of, which is Amnesty International, and Amnesty has done some great work. But also, Amnesty International on a day like today, when we learn this horrific story about what looks like happened to those two U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- I went to Amnesty International's website right before the show, Bill, their international website, their American version of it. Not a single mention of the soldiers being tortured in Iraq. You know what was mentioned? Guantánamo Bay and U.S. rendition policy and World Cup soccer. Those are the -- that's what they're focusing on.
O'REILLY: Well, there isn't any question --
INGRAHAM: It's outrageous.
O'REILLY: Yes, there's no question that Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, which by the way, has a little place on Guantánamo Bay and which, by the way, I submit is the reason that the three Al Qaeda suspects committed suicide, because Amnesty -- I mean, International Red Cross told the Americans you've gotta give them privacy, you gotta let them tape up their window, and they did. And you tape up the window, you can't see in, they're gonna be able to hang themselves.
[...]
O'REILLY: Do you think Howard Dean helps the enemy?
INGRAHAM: I think when the enemy sees the reaction in the United States, not of unifying to defeat them, but of picking apart every aspect of what we're trying to do there, when those soldiers get treated the way they did, I think they are absolutely emboldened. They're very savvy. They're on all the websites. They watch CNN International and any other broadcast they can get their hands on. And you better believe it has to embolden the people who want to do us harm.
O'REILLY: What about John Murtha's dissent in the Iraq war? Does that help the enemy in your opinion?
INGRAHAM: Well, I think anytime they can use war veterans, you know, people who have served this country, to then say, look, we're the problem in Iraq, that we're stoking the violence in Iraq, that the terrorists want us in Iraq because we're depleting our military resources, that helps them. I mean, that's a recruiting tool. This guy is recognized by many as a war hero, and yet, he's condemning the United States.
[...]
O'REILLY: How about Jimmy Carter? He signs the torture ad along with the reverends, and the torture ad, as I told the reverends, shows up in the Arab press: "See, we told you they were torturing." How about Jimmy Carter? Is he helping the enemy?
INGRAHAM: Yeah. Nobel Prize -- Nobel Prize winner, right, criticizing the United States' torture policy, which of course, as you pointed out, we do not have a torture policy in the United States --
O'REILLY: Yes, we don't have a torture policy.
INGRAHAM: -- except we're against -- we're against torture. So, yeah, when he went down to Cuba and spent time with Castro and said he did really -- what did he say? He didn't see the problems in Cuba that a lot of right-wing people have characterized down there? I mean, this is nothing new for Jimmy Carter. Again, the biggest obstacle to world peace for many of these people right now seems to be the United States: We're the problem. If you look in the mirror, the enemy, we see him. He's us. And I think that hurts us.
O'REILLY: All right. It's a very interesting discussion. Because the line on dissent and helping the enemy, it's a tough, tough line.
From the June 20 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: The ACLU is rooting for the enemy. They're rooting for the enemy. They're helping the enemy in every way they can. The American Civil Liberties Union is Al Qaeda's best friend. There is not a better friend to Al Qaeda in the world than the ACLU, and that's the truth. OK?
To use the words of Dave Mustaine "Now we've found you We're gonna pound you We're gonna beat you Gonna defeat you We're gonna bust you We're gonna crush you We're gonna crush 'em"
If the insurgents want jihad, give it to them with such force and violence that they tremble in fear and soil themselves at the thought of even looking at one of our service members.
hey if you wanna crusade then as far as you are concerned it is OK for another country to invade the US and pound YOU into the ground?
Oh Dear!
Bill really seems to have blown a gasket.
At least all his hand wringing and ludicrous, panicked, knee-jerk impulse to start shooting on site is finally clear evidence that even HE doesn't believe this administration's fairy tale about "progress in Iraq"anymore. And after all his windbag rhetoric about defeating Saddam and bringing democracy to Iraq, what does he propose we should do now?
Take the military gloves off, impose martial law and impose a "shoot on sight" curfew.
Way to go Bill - if you can't beat 'em join 'em.
Do you think the residents of your cosy suburb would tolerate martial law imposed by a foreign occupier?
Uh while we're on the subject Bill, how does your dictionary define "Democracy"? (Hint - it's listed under "D").
I may not have checked the definition in my dictionary for a while, but I don't recall anything about "martial law" or all that "shoot on sight" stuff.
Oh and Bill, would you want YOUR kids over there being forced to shoot Iraqi civilians?
I thought not.
" Take the military gloves off, impose martial law and impose a "shoot on sight" curfew. Way to go Bill - if you can't beat 'em join 'em. "
Meakness doesn't win wars, and that's why the terrorists are doing so well. It sounds like you would prefer we leave Iraq in the hands of the terrorists and ignore that we were ever attacked by them. They certainly won the hearts and minds of several around here, huh?
Why was it that we dropped 2 A-bombs on Japan? Have you ever thought of that? We dropped them because we didn't want to lose (potentially) tens-of-thousands of more troops in a deadly ground attack that could last years longer. We need to do SOMETHING that will show the enemy that we are serious about stopping them. While I don't mean drop any nukes, but I certainly do not rule out bombing the heck out of major areas where the terrorists are known to be shacked up. To minimize civilian deaths, we can always corden off the area with razor wire and give them a couple days notice. Let the innocent leave then bomb the cities to rubble.
Anything wrong with that?
---"It sounds like you would prefer we leave Iraq in the hands of the terrorists and ignore that we were ever attacked by them."---
Iraq did not attack us. Osama bin Laden wasn't in Iraq. He isn't in Iraq. He had nothing to do with Iraq. Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda. Rinse and repeat.
Iraq didn't attack us, you're right. But the UN authorized a coalition force to remove Saddam from power. Then al-queda (they ARE the ones who attacked us) moved in and started a different fight. Which continues today. What part of that is not clear?
The UN based its decision on cherry-picked intelligence provided by Cheney and his junta. That is painfully clear now.
The longer we stay, the more terrorists we will create. Which part of that isn't clear?
Really? What UN resolution authorized that and when was it passed?
" Really? What UN resolution authorized that and when was it passed? "
[link to en.wikipedia.org] Under Pres Clinton's watch was most (if not all) information attained to make the decision to invade. So, it isn't all together correct to blame the "faulty" information on Bush and his cronies. Plus, many other country's information gathering dept.'s came to the same conclusion. And, appropriate warnings were given to Clinton. [link to www.newamericancentury.org]
First, resolution 661 was passed in August of 1990. Second, it did not authorize the removal of Saddam. Nor did it even authorize force. It did authorize sanctions in order to pressure Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.
It's clear you didn't read the resolution, nor even the site you referenced. It's also clear you didn't even bother to think about the date on the resolution. So for the dishonest and/or lazy, here's some facts ...
In summary, your original assertion was simply false. As for your reference to Clinton and the letter from PNAC, do you even know who PNAC is? Did you notice the date on the letter? I suggest you read it, take note of the signatories and take note of this quote...
Not sure what happened there. Here's those two parts again in (hopefully) more readable type...
Resolution 661 was, of course, related to the Gulf War under Bush 41. It had nothing to do with the U.S. invasion of 2003.
and here's the other... In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
How many of these dittobots actually try to connect our invasion of Iraq to 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...even Puddinhead George admitted it. INVADING IRAQ WAS A STUPID MISTAKE. The sooner the troglodytes confront that unpleasant FACT, the sooner we can move on.
I certainly do not rule out bombing the heck out of major areas where the terrorists are known to be shacked up. To minimize civilian deaths, we can always corden off the area with razor wire and give them a couple days notice. Let the innocent leave then bomb the cities to rubble. Anything wrong with that?
(1) If we know they're shacked up there, why don't we just go get them in their shacks? Why carpet bomb?
(2) There's the slightest chance that when we give two days' notice of the impending bombing campaign, the terrorists will leave too.
(3) After we're done bombing their homes to rubble, where will the innocents live?
If we try the cute little razor wire thing, how are you going to sort them out? Every time you turn around, we're releasing people from GITMO that just a week before were "dangerous turrists".
Will we have them fill out a turrist screening form?
Wars of insurgency have one thing in common, the insurgents ability to blend back into the civilian population.
The Japanese people supported the war. They and their country were at war with the US. Our dropping atomic bombs on them, right or wrong, was an attempt to undermine their ability and their desire to continue to wage war.
Iraq is entirely different. A small percentage of the population supports the insurgents. How do we bomb the insurgents without harming a lot of innocent civilians? The more innocent people who have to suffer, the more the insurgency grows. It's a vicious cycle. The cycle has to be broken, but not by killing the innocent.
is an idiot with ZERO understanding of the makeup of the insurgency. First of all, the Sunni-led insurgency, metastasizing continually, is a hydra-headed army of armies representing former Baathist military, security, and intelligence officers, assorted nationalists and Islamists, tribal and clan leaders, and city and neighborhood militias. It has shown remarkable resilience. The elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not likely to put much of a dent in the Sunni resistance and may only strengthen it. Studies of the insurgency show that most of its fighters are loyal to the Baath party, whose origins were among left-leaning Arab nationalists, or they are loyal to a more specific version of Iraqi nationalism, or they simply oppose the foreign occupation of their country.
So, the insurgency is not a foreign terrorist enterprise!
Sure, the U.S. can turn Iraq into a police state, but then I NEVER want to hear you make any claims about America's desire to see Iraq turn into a democracy. Saddam justified his behavior out of a need for security, is there any assurance you can provide LL-Time that the Americans will not make brutal police tactics a permanent feature of the occupation? The military already employs such tactics, by the way, contrary to your indoctrinated mind.
As for a true path to peace, I recommend negotiations with the insurgency, which is what the U.S. Ambassador to iraq, Zalmay Khlalizad, has been doing. For the past year, off and on, Khalilzad has conducted secret talks with the resistance and has openly made a distinction between Zarqawi-style jihadists and former Baathists and military men. Since the creation of the new, allegedly permanent government under Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Iraqi government officials once again have raised the idea of talking to the resistance. An aide to Maliki even suggested an amnesty for armed fighters who have killed U.S. troops. That's a good idea, and it's been raised more than once since 2003. In this case, though, an ignorant Sen. Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and Senate minority leader, expressed outrage at the idea of an amnesty. According to the Washington Post, which first reported the amnesty idea, the Maliki aide who suggested it was fired.
But people like you, LL-Time, cling to fantasies of "terrorists", and "unconditional victory", hollow terms that add nothing constructive to the debate.
" LL-time is an idiot with ZERO understanding of the makeup of the insurgency. "
Well, thank you for your understanding of others opinions! It's good to know differing opinions are welcome. I guess I have to put all your crayons back in your box and go sit in the corner until YOU'RE willing to let others play your game!
But, on the reality side...YOUR opinion is that we "talk" to the terrorists and give the ones who poked our soldiers eyes out before beheading them amnesty. And, I'M the idiot?
He's a psycho with no compassion, no brains, no credibility, and no class.
No wonder he's Fox's "biggest star."
Billy *hearts* Saddam.
BFF
So wait. I thought Saddam was a bad man because he ruled with an iron fist?
Aren't we just fantastic for getting rid of a man who would do such things. Bravo to us!
Now O'Reilly advocates the same kind of iron-fisted rule we supposedly went to war to stop.
So basically the business shouldn't change, simply because it is now under new management?
Does this guy even listen to the crap he says?
Let me try to summarize their points:
Bad:
Not-So-Bad:
Good:
Anyone old enough to remember the Viet Nam War should recognise these same patterns being played out. After the Tet Offensive had made it clear that the Viet Cong were not anywhere near to being 'in their final throes', the right wing supporters of the war embraced the tactic of blaming the media & antiwar protesters for these clearly failed policies. We would succeed, they snarled bitterly, but for the treason & sedition of the war's critics. Why, they demanded to know, do these liberals hate America & wish to see her lose?
Our current neocon crop of war mongers are simply, in their panic, turning to this same failed tactic. It's not THEIR foolish & ill-concieved plans that have landed us in this sucking morass, but rather America-hating LIBERALS! We have no recourse, they fume, but to continue to grind away at an enemy that seems to be able to constantly renew itself, year after bloody year, in order to stave of the humiliation of withdrawal & defeat. Otherwise, we might end up with a BLOODBATH on our hands!
But a bloodbath is what we already have. And its growing bloodier every month, as we continue to lose troops & the Iraqis continue to lose their people to this savage & pointless conflict.
And all so that a bunch of rich, greedy pricks can continue to deny just how badly they miscalculated this naked grab for an even bigger slice of the earth's resources... just how badly they f*cked up.
The good news is that the raging, the denying, & the angry finger pointing that two-bit sociopathic media whores like Bill O'Reilly & Laura Ingraham have resorted to indicate that it is the NEOCONS who are losing steam, & are realizing that it is their dream of directly controling the world's oil supply that is truly in its 'last throes'.
The bad news is that a whole sh*tload of good people are going to continue to be slaughtered as this sad psychodrama plays itself out.
During the Vietnam war, did they advocate staying so that all those who died before wouldn't have died in vain? I'll bet they did, and it was as stupid then as it is now.
the VFW and the John Birtch Society and all those types were spitting on 'Nam vets.
The news organisation respected around the world for it's standard of journolism? Now why would someone who works for a R. Murdoch own news station in the States (he owns sister station Sky News in the UK and HATES the BBC. He also took the BBC news channel OFF his satillite in China so he could sell dishes to show his channels) want to have a go at them?
Could it be because:
Unlike Faux they actually ASK QUESTIONS of politicians, expecially when they know they are talking rose fertilizer or contradicting basic facts (i.e "We do not torture" " Start talking about 9/11, end with Saddam" ).
They have newsmen like John Humphries on Radio 4's Today programme and Jeremy Paxman who are pitbulls when it comes to political interviewing and do their jobs regardless of rank or position (Paxman asking Bliar 16 TIMES how many illegal immigrants were in the UK. The reason? HE DIDN'T KNOW!!! Can you imagine ANYONE asking Bush a question he didn't know the answer too twice, let alone asking a follow up question).
They acurately report on things like Anti War demonstrations with how many people are actually there (they also give the figure that the officials say are there and show the difference).
They produced the documentary series "The Power Of Nightmares" which showed the rise of the Neo-Cons in the US and the use of fear to forward their agenda.
Could the above be part of the reason?
As for "Eight Days" Ingraham, maybe she should go to the actual homepage of Amnesty International and read what they are all about. Maybe their attempts to get UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS for all around the world may not be important to her (l mean come on, they're just a bunch of brown people who don't speak American) but l can see why they would not want people just locked up for years without charge, without seeing a lawyer, in solitary confinement, and being tortured(yes, you silly woman, you lot DO torture. People around the world know this because your President has a signing statement on your torture bill to allow torture to happen if it wants too). Expecially in a country which the current Administration hypocritically claims is above such things but people around the world know that they do the things above. Then again she probably thinks that they get their news from the US news media.
Please don't think we don't like the BBC over here. We do. Many of our public radio stations carry BBC broadcasts (which are great, BTW). We even have a BBC America cable network! O'Reilly is an idiot.
Can you please just go over there already?
I simply do not know why this man is still employed. His stance, to be like Saddam, is not only anti-American but also is a perfect example of his way of being HYPOMOCKRACY.
Hypocrisy at the mocking of Democracy.
Yea, be like Saddam.
The only part he's right on was how there was no insurgency under Sadamm Hussein. Come to think of it, there was never a suicide bomb in Iraq during Saddam's reign. So to O'Reilly's walnut-sized brain, we have to be "more like Sadaam?"
The man is delusional. He even blames the International Red Cross on the suicides at Gitmo. And of course the ACLU is rooting for the enemy.
The man is a mess.
You say the ACLU should be exposed. I'm a member of the ACLU, and I say bring it on. You keep slandering us with zero facts to back up anything you say. C'mon Billy - show us what you got. Put up or shut up.
I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU as well. I have yet to see a serious attack on them that has not resorted to vicious exaggeration/distortion of the ACLU's stated purpose or mind-reading of the ACLU's "real" intentions.
Also a card carrying member of the ACLU
Well, at least SOME people care about what sort of a society that we all have to live in.
Imus on his hate show in the morning has also stated we should put Saddam back in power. He has said this numerous times over the past year.
This is honeslty the most terrible thing I've read on this site. This is just a barrage of anti-anti-war rhetoric. I've seen plenty of information about our soldiers getting tortured, and as heartbreaking as that is, it's part of war. However, our massacre of Iraqis shouldn't be, and we can control that while we can't control what the enemy does to us. Yea, let's fight this war just like we fought World War II. Let's dig a couple trenches (despite the Iraqi army not having a unified front) and then let's drop the bomb in Korea.
So President Carter signs an anti-torture document and O'Reilly vilifies him.
GWB signs a bill against torture, but ads a signing statement saying he'll torture if he wants to.
Which is the true American?
the problem is jimmy carter signed this anti torture document as if to say torture was sanctioned US policy, which it is not. not to mention, carter should have had the forethought to know a document like this would be used against us via propoganda, as it was in an egyptian newpaper - "see, look at the US policy, they torture".
Regardless of what any on the right are saying, GWB signed the anti-torture legislation and added his own signing statement. It doesn't get any clearer than that. We now condone torture. His signing statement proves that he thinks that he can decide on a case by case basis whether torture is necessary.
i have no problem with this as this signing statement gives bush the authority to harshly interrogate those in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. the key word is "prevent". bush's main job is to protect us, we are dealing with brutal killers who want us destroyed. unlike no other conflict in our history before, this signing statement is necessary.
We are not defined by what our enemies do to us, we are defined by how we treat our friends and our enemies. You want to change that. The American Military has always held themselves to higher standards. Every person who served could be proud of that. Every person serving takes an oath, every person serving is required to disobey an unlawful order. Every person serving is required to treat prisoners humanely. There is no other way. To say that there is a way around these rules is to classify our country and our military as little more than animals. We will have become what we hate and fear. Then the hate and fear will spread until we hate and fear each other.
rather than all this talk about theory, let me ask you about a real scenario that could very possibly occur. what say in the event of another terrorist attack on this country the size of 9/11 or greater, and that attack was subsequently linked to information, that if retrieved, from a prisoner could have been prevented. however, that prisoner was not interrogated harshly enough and refused to offer up specifics that could have led to the prevention of that attack. your fellow citizens lay dead in the street, but this prisoner's treatment was stopped short of more harsh methods. how do you square that? or do you feel vindicated somehow? i am not advocating torturing prisoners as policy, but an exception for stronger treatment in some cases could save thousands of lives.
Your scenario is compelling. However, logically, it requires us to torture every prisoner we capture. It also assumes that torture will get us the information we need. And how would we know when to stop torturing someone, if they actually have no information?
not every prisoner is in a position to know the innerworkings of a future terrorist plot. that is what our interragators job is to do, to determine who is in positions of knowledge and do what's necessary to foil any plots in the pipeline. i want all efforts taken to prevent another slaughter of innocent americans. if this means harsly treating some, so be it. we disagree.
...how will the interrogators make that initial determination without torturing everyone?
i am not an interrogator, but these people are professional and very savvy at what they do. they have experience and training and should be more than capable of that determination. i trust their judgement, or at least i sincerely hope so. if not, then the entire premise of my argument is useless.
We won't be in agreement on this subject, now or ever.
Can we at least agree that we should not be looking to people like O'Reilly for the solution to the complex issues facing us today?
we can agree on that, for sure. if o'reilly were as cautious and prudent in his opinions and facts, as his ego was large, he would be better off.
See that, common ground. It feels good.
I might point out that the Dominicans of the Inquisition were also very good at what they did. It doesn't necessarily make them right.
I prefer to keep my soul and our country's reputation as a DECENT country at least as much as is left after Bush. Give the RIGHT to the government to torture under these circumstances and what stops them from torturing whoever they want and then CLAIMING they thought they qualified? We are supposed to be a nation of laws because people cannot be trusted not to be corrupted by power. YOUR solution just demands we TRUST our government to act honorably. WE cannot bargain away our collective souls by condoning torture from the COWARDLY excuse we are AFRAID of the bad guys. The scary terrorists MIGHT hurt us so we HAVE to be able to torture whoever we choose to save our lives. What is the point of saving my life if it cost me my soul?
Information gained by torture is not reliable. The prisoner will tell you what he thinks you want to hear, just to make it stop. If you pull out his fingernails until he tells you when and where an attack is going to take place, all he has to do is make up a date, time and place. If it doesn't occur, he'll just say they changed it because they knew he had been captured.
You've seen too many James Bond movies.
if our interrogators can't tell the difference between false and made up information vs. credible information provided by a terrorist bigwig, then they are not suited for their job. this isn't a schoolyard here with bratty kids, these are killers who would just as soon cut our throats as breathe.
the U.S. certainly does rely on the admissions of detainees acquired under torture. Such was the basis for Bush's claim that Iraq was training Al-Qaeda operatives in the use of poison gases, which he made in Cincinnati on October 7th 2002, or perhaps your whitewash of history eliminated that statement from the record.
forming your understanding of terrorist behavior on episodes of "24." In reality, you don't capture a terrorist conspirator minutes before a backpack is set to explode in a locker at Grand Central Station, and the only way to stop it is to cut off a few fingers. WRONG! 9/11 required years of planning and in real life, breaking up plots does not occur that way.
John McCain was actually tortured when he was a POW and he says he found harsh treatment less effective in getting information out of him. Of course that would make him a victim and "unattackable" if we were to use Ann Coulter's logic.
then let's give them mai tai's, a massage, a vacation to hawaii and a gucci gift certificate. then they will answer whatever we ask them.
Not torturing is not the same as pampering. You are capable of honest debate, one of the conservatives worth debating, this post was, I assume out of frustration, disengenuous. You have been better than that.
Then please explain why Bush has added a signing statement to every bill he's signed since entering the Oval Office?
if these detainess are brutal killers, why have they not been charged with any crime? Why have they been rotting away in a prison cell for years without any idea as to why they are there? Most of the people at Gitmo were ratted out by greedy bounty hunters or were in the wrong place at the wrong time, not because they were enemy combatants.
Right On, your understanding of the makeup of the detainess is so oversimplified and ignorant that it makes me cringe. Sure, you can continue to believe that everyone at Gitmo is an Al-Qaeda operative, but that is simply not the truth. You can continue to believe a patent lie, but spare us your repetition of it.
You mention harsh interogation techniques. So beating a person's legs until they turn to pulp is OK with you? Even if the person has not been charged with any crime? You are a terrorist, righton. You support fascism and tyranny. You are unAmerican.
The oath he took was: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is to protect the Constitution not "us". Think about it...
Surely you jest. Bush hasn't a clue what it means to defend the Constitution. Think about it.
Bushs signing statement of the anti torture bill basically said he would torture if he felt like it. The freedom of information act memo on the ACLU website mentions a presidential authorization for abuse. We kidnapped Maher Arar and sent him to be torture for 10 months in Syria and that sort of extrordinary rendition is ABSOLUTLY policy. We have memos written by Bushs in house lawyers giving a rationale why Bush would be immune from prosecution under the Convention against torture statute. Do you think they did that as a hypothetical excersise despite the bad PR connotations? I am sorry but I am afraid its pretty clear torture IS policy. We CERTAINLY arent standing AGAINST it. As usual a conservative isnt really concerned we TORTURE people but is inscenced that people will SAY we are torturing people. Why doesnt the fact we are actually responsible for TORTURING people trouble you more than the fact people will CRITICISE us for torturing people or accuse us, with good reason, for torturing people?
The President's main job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
Torturing prisoners to prevent possible conceivable maybe future attacks seems a litte difficult to reconcile with our basic principles. Of course, when you're scared sh*tless, I guess you can justify anything.
With all the blustering that O'Reilly has about using the tactics of Saddam...Do you get the feeling that he would kinda like to use those tactics here on his "listed" enemies? I an imagine a dreamy look coming into his eyes if asked that question.
Fox News works so hard to spread their right wing propoganda 24/7 and yet even with all their help, Bush still can't get out of the 30s. Many Americans have awoken from their slumber and realized they have the right to their opinions and they don't need O'Reilly's approval first. There is no doubt that they will only get louder and nastier in the next few months, but I doubt it will do them any good.
"Saddam was able to control Iraq, as you know, and defeat insurgencies against him. The new Iraqi government can do the same, but it needs to get much tougher."
We'll be fighting in the streets With our children at our feet And the morals that they worship will be gone And the men who spurred us on Sit in judgement of all wrong They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again
The change, it had to come We knew it all along We were liberated from the fold, that's all And the world looks just the same And history ain't changed 'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again No, no!
I'll move myself and my family aside If we happen to be left half alive I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky Though I know that the hypnotized never lie Do ya?
There's nothing in the streets Looks any different to me And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye And the parting on the left Are now parting on the right And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again Don't get fooled again No, no!
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
(Won't Get Fooled Again - The Who)
It's an interesting irony that Bill O'Reilly's initials are "B.O."
B.S.