58% Say Release of CIA Memos Endangers National Security

In this case the 58% is wrong. Exposing the poor choices of the conservative Bush administration will not harm national security. It is ludicrous to even say such a thing. Doing the right thing is not wrong and exposing the conservative Bush administration in this matter was the right thing to do, IMHO.

 

It is ludicrous & dishonest to keep portraying Bush as a conservative. You should stop.

 

It is unwise to release them, particularly from a political standpoint. The Obama administration is not fighting it, which is yet another example of the lack of judgment in the current administration. Politically, you don't want to be the administration that is connected with the publication of these things.

This might actually be a good thing though. When those who want to destroy America see them, it might make them think twice about it. We should release them with the caption, "Don't think we won't do it to you."

The reality is that this is about the culture of life. Those who value life don't like the these tactics, but understand it's role in the preservation of life. Those who don't value life as much are more likely to object to it. Again, notice that it is the ACLU and the left-wingers who are leading this charge. These are the people who don't value life in the womb, and they don't value life at the end, and they don't value life in the middle. They would rather protect the bad guys from temporary discomfort than protect innocent civilians.

 

It is the right-wing hate America crowd that is on the wrong side of this issue, not the progressives. The other folks on the wrong side of this issue are just misinformed or not thinking correctly about this issue.

 

The problem with "progressives" and their messiah is that they don't know what side they are on.

Obama is inept.

He selectively released memos to make the Bush administration look bad and is caught in his own trap. What a moron!

 

Shocking the Conscience

Shocking the Conscience
The Bush administration made waterboarding almost routine.

[SIZE=-1]Tuesday, April 21, 2009 [/SIZE]

IT WAS DEPRESSING enough when U.S. officials finally admitted last year that the country had waterboarded terrorism detainees. Bush administration officials from the president on down tried to quell the ensuing outcry by reassuring the country and the rest of the world that the technique, which simulates drowning and has been considered torture since it was introduced during the Spanish Inquisition, had been used only on high-ranking, "high-value" members of terrorist groups and only to obtain information necessary to avert an imminent and catastrophic attack. The administration and its band of lawyers argued that the application of such harsh interrogation techniques did not "shock the conscience" and thus abided by domestic and international strictures against torture because their use was limited, targeted and meant to save innocent lives.

Now comes the revelation that CIA interrogators were far from restrained in their use of this ancient and cruel technique.

According to a recently released Justice Department memo, CIA operatives subjected two al-Qaeda leaders -- alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and high-level lieutenant Abu Zubaida -- to 266 episodes of waterboarding. Mr. Mohammed is said to have been waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 -- for an average of six episodes a day of what has been described as among the most terrifying and brutal forms of coercive interrogation. Mr. Zubaida was subjected to water torture 83 times during August 2002. There is no mention of how many times a third detainee, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was waterboarded. Had any foreign government or terrorist group treated U.S. citizens in this way, the country would have been appalled -- and rightly so.

The details are contained in a section of a May 30, 2005, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel released last week by President Obama. First reported online by such blogs as Emptywheel, the section takes its information from a confidential report issued by the CIA's inspector general.

The savagery of extremists cannot justify the abdication of principles or the adoption of means as brutal as those of the extremists.

- www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042003165_pf.html

(Emphasis mine)

 

Who set you up in knowledge about who is conservative and who is not?

You're of one camp or the other: You're either showing your ignorance and flaunting it OR you're posting opposite to you're own knowledge with the intention to inflame.

Neither is becoming of you, Ken. If you wish to associate certain activies with a particular administration then be honest and do so.... as the CIA memos with the Bush administration.

But why don't you stop this castration of conservatives. Bush and his administration was anything but conservative and either you know this to be fact or you are throughly deceived ......and worse .......you are propagating your own deception upon those empty enough to believe you.

 

Sean Hannity offers to be waterboarded for charity, Offer given for $1000 per second

I guess we'll see if Sean Hannity has the intestinal fortitude to back up his words.

www.newsmax.com/insidecover/olbermann_hannity_torture/2009/04/24/207025.html

 

Buffoonery. We don't saw people's heads off. We don't forcibly circumcise our young women, we don't force them into marriage, or kill them for wearing halter tops.

Ignorant hackery.

 

Well said. Unfortunately...it seems that there is a crowd in our country who would equate conservatives with the Wahabbi savages. It's sad that one would be so intellectually dishonest as Ken is being here.

 

I think most of this has to do with the press. Those who oppose the release are far more vocal than those who have no problem with it. Unfortunately this is one of those things we'll understand better in the by and by.

 

That was the ticket he ran on? Those were his constituents who put him in office? How can a party deny the guy they made leader of the nation because he turned out to not be what they expected? If Obama screws up like Bush, there is no way the right will allow the left to say, "It is ludicrous & dishonest to keep portraying Obama as a liberal. You should stop."...

No sir, if the right was going to disown him they should have done it before they put him in charge. They put him in, they get to own him and disowning him is what's ludicrous & dishonest. They can't turn their back on their man because they don't like what he did.

 

Here I thought, "finally a thread that won't lead to abortion". I guess I was wrong...

 

You heard it first here...Bush wasn't elected; "the right" (whoever that is) put him in charge. And keep in mind...we are not allowed to criticize him.

 

Yes we can, we can call Bush a liberal, because that is what he governed as. Your spin fails. It does not even make sense.

 

I don't consider it to be okay to go down the wrong path as long as we don't go to the extreme of that path like others do.