The Europeans won’t arrest Roman Polanski for raping a 13-year-old girl

November 10th, 2010

But they’d happily detain an American President for waterboarding a known terrorist to save innocent lives:

George Bush could face arrest abroad after his frank admissions on waterboarding, generic viagra cialis a leading human rights lawyers has claimed.

Entry Filed under: Politics

33 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Janet Evans  |  November 11th, 2010 at 12:35 am

    Don’t forget about Vermont…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/05/georgebush.usa

  • 2. John Foust  |  November 11th, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    I assume you would allow any opposition force to use waterboarding against US soldiers, too, especially if it could save innocent lives.

  • 3. TerryN  |  November 12th, 2010 at 10:35 am

    Don’t assume anything. Some people stand up for something they believe in. Like liberty and justice for all who want it.

    Personally I would have preferred if they used waterboarding on Danny Pearl, or Nick Berg, or Paul Johnson, or Eugene Armstrong…

  • 4. John Foust  |  November 12th, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Don’t be coy, Terry. So it’s OK for us to use, but not them? When Joe Taliban or Ralph Alqaeda captures a US soldier and believes they can extract intel that’ll save innocent lives, it’s OK for them to waterboard? Why not other forms of torture, too?

  • 5. Elliot  |  November 12th, 2010 at 11:36 am

    I think Terry’s point is that the enemy doesn’t waterboard, they decapitate.

  • 6. Piggyboy  |  November 12th, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    John Fart&something: don’t be a smartass – this enemy will do whatever they do regardless of what we do. They’re not part to any war treaties with us, in fact, they’re not regular militaries. If we were to respoind in kind, it’d be far worse than waterboarding.

  • 7. TerryN  |  November 12th, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    Elliot got my point. John thinks WE were the bad guys under GWB.

  • 8. Janet Evans  |  November 12th, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    How would one retrieve information from a terrorist, John? Please enlighten us.

  • 9. grumps  |  November 15th, 2010 at 9:15 am

    We were the bad guys under GWB, Terry. Not the ONLY bad guys, to be sure. But once we became a nation that totures we became the bad guys.

    Free nations should not embrace the tools of tyrants.

  • 10. TerryN  |  November 15th, 2010 at 9:44 am

    “Free nations should not embrace the tools of tyrants”

    We didn’t. Nobody in our custody lost their heads. Instead more lives were saved.

  • 11. Debunked  |  November 15th, 2010 at 10:28 am

    Semantic argument: cutting off somebody’s head isn’t torture. It’s execution.

    And what lives were saved? American soldiers lives? How do you even know that any information gained through torture saved lives?

    And even if torture saves lives, are you making the moral argument that it is okay to psychologically and physically injure or kill one innocent person to save one thousand innocent people? What about severely injuring or killing ten innocents to save one thousand? Where do you draw the line?

    And how many innocent Iraqis were killed based on torture gained information providing incorrect strike coordinates? Was the net saving greater than the net loss of human lives? Or are making the claim that American lives are worth more than Iraqi lives?

    How about we just bring all of the soldiers home and leave the middle east to the middle east and stop torturing anybody. I’ll take the risk that I won’t get blown up here at home without us having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to blow up Iraqis overseas. And hey, in another generation maybe the terrorists won’t have an entire generation of children who watched American soldiers kill their families to prey upon. But you know, that would take time and typical ignorance can’t wait that long.

  • 12. Elliot  |  November 15th, 2010 at 10:49 am

    I’m ready to bring the troops home, myself.

  • 13. John Foust  |  November 15th, 2010 at 11:15 am

    War treaties? Who cares about those? It’s like ignoring the need for Constitutional declarations of war. What were our ancestors thinking?

  • 14. Janet Evans  |  November 15th, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    If I recall, the “beheading” of Nicholas Berg was one of the most horrifying videos I have ever seen. I won’t attempt to find and view it again, even if it is still out there. But I remember the TERRORIST who sawed off his head did it with what in essence was equal to a butter knife. It was pure torture and seemed to take forever. And it was torture for his relatives. And it did its job of what a terrorist expected it to do – torture the souls of those who fear terrorists such as Al-Qaeda.

    It’s amazing how there are those in these United States who will make our own citizens give up freedoms, with the mantra “if we could just save one life,” but when we may save thousands or more from the hands of a terrorist or terrorist group who dares to infiltrate our country we cower like sheep.

    http://www.meforum.org/713/beheading-in-the-name-of-islam

    Oh, and Debunked…what side are you on anyway? Oh wait, let me guess…the side of humanity. Well, name a time when war hasn’t existed.

  • 15. TerryN  |  November 15th, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    I thought the Islamic terrorists were not soldiers of a sovereign nation? More semantics I guess.

    Some people assert that waterboarding two Al Qaeda ringleaders prevented specific terror plots.

    If we must err I prefer we err on the side of saving lives. I only wish we would have been more discreet about it.

  • 16. John Foust  |  November 16th, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    You think it’s better than a butter knife to drop a guided bomb on civilians? You think the video – if we had access to it – would be any less horrific? The bright line between civilization and barbarism is somewhere between beheading, guided bombs and water-boarding?

  • 17. TerryN  |  November 16th, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    There’s evil in all of us John.

  • 18. Janet Evans  |  November 17th, 2010 at 11:11 pm

    I don’t “think,” I know it is better to use a guided bomb than a butter knife. And if you really haven’t seen the video I’m sure I can find it for you. Whether you will ever admit it or not (and I know you will not) there is a difference between war and terrorism. War has always been accepted (not that it has been welcomed). We fight to protect our freedom. We don’t fight to instill terror.

    And water boarding? Find me a terrorist who water boards.

    If you were on Flight 93 would you have charged the terrorists? There are those who would sit passively. It’s the nature the beast. Are you a runner or a fighter? It’s interesting to ponder, isn’t it?

  • 19. John Foust  |  November 18th, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    I tend to head for the action. Someone might need help. It’s the Eagle Scout in me. I wear a cape.

  • 20. Debunked  |  November 18th, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    What freedoms are we protecting again? http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=164269&catid=339

    Sure Obama and Janet Napolitano take some of the blame, but we wouldn’t have having this discussion in the first place if we hadn’t had the drastic over-reaction to 9/11 we got from Bush. There’s plenty of blame to go around to both parties.

    Waterboarding isn’t protecting our freedoms. The “War on Terror” isn’t protecting our freedoms. And your statement that “war has always existed” is similarly flawed. War has always existed – but what is the driving factor for war in almost every situation throughout history? Resources, power, and wealth. It’s always been about gaining land or controlling resources. The peasants died so the king could gain power.

    The Iraq War and the rise of terrorism is no different. There’d be no rise of terrorism if we weren’t fucking around with the Middle East. And we wouldn’t be fucking around with the Middle East if we actually moved past our oil dependency.

    Protecting our freedoms is all rhetoric the wealthy pass on to the working class so the working class volunteers to die all so the wealthy can gain more wealth and power. Note the similarities? It’s pretty damned obvious.

    Yup. War has always existed. And it still exists for the exact same reasons as it did a millennium ago. And you’re defending it under the guise it’s always existed.

    Good job.

  • 21. Janet Evans  |  November 18th, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    I suppose you’d run off to Canada or whatever country would take you, Debunked, with your tail between your legs then if you would be (or had been) called up then? Yes, the nature of war is for want/or need/or to protect. That’s the nature of man.

    Can you lump a small tribe of people in a wilderness in your same thought process? A tribe where every man, including the elderly would go to war to fight for what was theirs? An American Indian tribe? Or a African warrior tribe? A tribe who’s only wealth was their patch of land near a water source, their families, their animals, and what they called homes? It’s the nature of man to fight for what they own and for their freedom. Why don’t you get it?

    Terrorism/and I don’t just mean decapitation and bombings/ but the consequences…the fear where it alters our way of life so we have to give up our freedoms bit by bit and constantly look over our shoulders and wonder where the next attack will be…that’s far worse than war. At least with war you know your enemy.

    Defend war? If that’s what you want to call it.
    Again, I call it defending freedom. Better to defend war than have the audacity to defend terrorism.

  • 22. Debunked  |  November 18th, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    Seriously? I can only assume you’re being intentionally naive or you’re just choosing to blatantly overlook the obvious major flaw in your argument.

    That tribe is defending their land. They’re not the aggressors. The aggressors start the war.

    When it comes to the Middle East, we are the aggressors. We’re not defending freedom. We’re defending our monetary interests in that region.

    How, exactly, would your hypothetical small tribe of people with slingshots and bows and arrows defend against an aggressor with muskets and pistols?

    They’re not going to directly assault the army of the aggressor, obviously. They’re going to strike from the shadows. Take captives of opportunity. And attempt to change the aggressors decision to invade.

    The US military is the largest and most technologically advanced in the world. You can’t fight it directly. So you fight it indirectly in any way you can. I’m not defending the actions of terrorists. But to say we’re defending our freedoms when we’re the ones killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens by sending our soldiers to the other side of the world and into their countries is, frankly, just absurd.

  • 23. Janet Evans  |  November 18th, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    “How, exactly, would your hypothetical small tribe of people with slingshots and bows and arrows defend against an aggressor with muskets and pistols?”

    Obviously they can’t – hence reservations and slavery. And my grandfather was a true “peasant” in “Russia” before Latvia became its own country. All people who once new freedom or became free.

    I’m not naive. You just live with conspiracy theories. You just aren’t a patriot.

    I don’t know your age or if you’ve had military in your family. I don’t know if you fought in Vietnam, or hid under a desk in the 1960s waiting during a civil defense drill, or were in a classroom on 9/11, or worry that your brand new baby will someday be drafted. That could give insight to what makes you tick. But you can’t just focus on the middle east if we’re going to talk about war.

  • 24. TerryN  |  November 18th, 2010 at 9:46 pm

    “There’d be no rise of terrorism if we weren’t fucking around with the Middle East.”

    I just want to know for sure if what you wrote is what you meant.

    Do you really justify the killing of thousands of innocent people because of your perceived, “fucking around with the Middle East”?

    Do you even remember Munich, 1972? Were those Olympians, “fucking around with the Middle East”?

  • 25. Debunked  |  November 18th, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    Really? It’s a conspiracy theory to say war is about gaining resources and power? And saying I’m just not a patriot for stating that? Not surprising I guess – typical conservative rhetoric.

    And then you go on to bring up Vietnam and the Cold War as refutation examples? The Cold War is a prime example of exactly what I was stating. Rich politicians from the Western and Soviet worlds competing for influence over the rest of the world. How does that not directly relate to exactly what I was saying war is, again?

  • 26. Janet Evans  |  November 19th, 2010 at 12:53 am

    Rhetoric? Hardly. Look in a mirror.

    Water boarding. Middle East. Oil. Rich politicians.

    ((yawn))

  • 27. John Foust  |  November 19th, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Shorter™ Janet: Why’d they put our oil under their land?

  • 28. TerryN  |  November 19th, 2010 at 11:33 am

    I guess John doesn’t realize that they sell that oil to us for a profit…

  • 29. John Foust  |  November 19th, 2010 at 11:54 am

    Right, Terry. I had no idea. We’ll be welcomed as liberators. It’ll pay for itself.

  • 30. Janet Evans  |  November 19th, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    Our oil? Right. If it was our oil I’d be paying 32 cents per gallon of gas.

    Isn’t your argument getting old? Maybe when Obama is voted out of office there will be something fresh to discuss…or will you still be pontificating on Bush?

  • 31. TerryN  |  November 19th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    Once again John Foust is projecting…

  • 32. John Foust  |  November 19th, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    Elliot, the TerryN-bot is repeating itself…

  • 33. Elliot  |  November 19th, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Sorry, I’ll get some oil.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta