Obama's First 100 Days

So 51% are for torture.

Of course we all know that to be actually higher. These polls are always tipped to advantage the liberal/democrat and their agendas.

Another boring and predictable Round Table discussion. You can't investigate torture without asking why they had to waterboard 2 people 260+ times. Some reporting this week (but never on this show) suggests it was to find a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, for, if not falsifying reasons for the Iraq is not a crime, then I don't know what is a crime!

First I just want to say, "You go George Will." You were finally starting to get a little ballsy again. I am proud of you now just keep it up and tell more of the truth, even if Donna--the left-wing socialist, can't get it right any of the time--Brazile is on the show. One thing I did notice this morning was that because there was some halfway intelligent conversation going on she was mostly a spectator in the discussion.

Now then, Alan, I just have to say that some nuts are hard to crack don't you think?. Maybe just one more try and we could have gotten the right information to save you, or a soldier, or any other civilians that are under attack from the terrorists who are so dead set against destroying our way of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You libs are a joke. Why don't you just all pack up and move to Al Quaedaville before you totally wreck this great nation. Huh?

Legal remedies for probable violations of the law are never political wrangling. Legal remedies bringing the light of day upon shrouded acts allow democracy where continued disinformation prevents democracy and is a form of diabolical tyranny the world has seen too much of. Legal remedies allow righteous citizens to once again hold up their heads. Legal remedies restore America to a rightful place in the family of nations. Legal remedies are the only way folks in other nations can be inspired that economic investment in America is a prudent idea. Legal remedies are the road for America to take as a necessary part of dusting off the transgressions of the past in order to get to any sort of future including a place at the table with honorable people. In short legal remedies going up and down the whole cascade of the acts in question are the only thing that can save the America we find ourselves in; they are our one ticket left to declaring that we are still a democracy who respects the rule of law in the end.

Jack B. is weighing in,

Just wanted to say, Amen brother! It was great to see George Will get back to defending the tenets of American values (i.e. conservatism)! I can tell by the look in his eyes that he is waking up to the fact that we have elected a radical anti-American Marxist socialist to the W.H.

BTW, its great to see some mature adults posting on this forum! Most of the posters on this site are either paid Obamabot bloggers, or crazy strays slithering over from the Democrat Underground.

Have you forgotten what Reagan said? Are you going to put him in the "you libs are a joke" category? This is from his signing statement ratifying the UN Convention on Torture from 1984:

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

Yes George those were the words of one of the greatest President to have ever graced the Oval Office. Unlike, Immoral C. and the Big O. Reagan said those words in the midst of a time when we were playing by the terrorist's rules. They were torturing and we were playing fair. Then time passed and a momentous event happened, maybe you libs will remember it, the terrorists attacked us on our own soil. If you don't remember it it is known forever now as 9/11. The World Trade Center came tumbling down on us as a nation and more specifically 3,000+ of our fellow Americans. That's the day there was new rules to the game(war). I say, and I am pretty sure the sound minded Ronald Reagan would agree, 'whatever it takes to keep us safe', THANK YOU, George W. Bush for doing all the things you did so tirelessy tokeep us safe. As I said after one of the saddest days of our lives, Election Day '08, "we must now go into survival mode". As "Hussein" apologizes for all the wrongs, injustices, and vile things America has perpetrated on the world, to the world, we who know the truth must shout from the mountaintops and go crawl around in the muck of the liberal agenda and expose them for what they really are, traitors at best.

One more thing, George and Alan, maybe you are right, the interrogators should have been smarter than they were and stopped at 259 waterboardings and gone on to electric shocks, ripping off of fingernails, and skin grafting techniques.

I don't think Ronald Reagan would have changed his mind on this. He would have held firm to doing "whatever it takes to keep us safe", but only if it is lawful. I think he would have considered it more important for us to maintain our standards than to give in to terrorist ways.

I watched the towers fall. I saw the horror. The terrorists weren't attacking buildings they were attacking our ideals as Americans. For us to make their ideals (torture) ours is giving in and giving up.

Ronald Reagan was not that kind of American. He was not one of give in and give up. To do so would make a mockery of the sacrifice of WWII.

George,

Please show me where Ronald Reagan defined water boarding as torture. This may come as a surprise to you, but many of us reject the liberal premise that water boarding is torture. If Obama wants to define it as such, then fine, going forward we now can put it in that category, but in 2002-2003, it was not torture.

If you want to see how real savages torture and use "gruesome" tactics, try looking up the Nick Berg beheading video on the internet.

News flash, our enemies are not going to refrain from those barbarian tactics even if we stop pouring water on terrorists heads to gain intelligence.

Missed the part of the program where you and your guests discussed the implications of this explosive news, George:

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-rest-is-silence/

You know George you are probably right. Reagan was a man of integrity and honor and all that is good in a person and an American of the highest caliber. Unlike the democratic presidents of the past and present. And once again we give up our civil liberties to appease the enemy. We will no doubt hang the offending parties and smear the good names and deeds that they did while defending us. All the while Clinton was doing unmentionable things with cigars and such and the terrorists were plotting and attacking us around the world, setting up the horrific events on 9/11. Big deal you saw the buildings fall and then you George aid in electing BHO with your slanted journalism and hosting your liberally biased guests. You are as disgusting as the terrorists themselves. And you call yourself an American. I say you are a domestic terrorist yourself. The truth is that you don't deserve to speak Reagan's name let alone quote him.

Listening to Cheney and the other neo-cons defend using torture is like giving credence to a rapist claiming that his victims asked for it. Why on earth should people find their comments credible when they are the immoral bastards that authorized the use of torture in the first place?

Hey Dan, they didn't behead Nick Berg 266 times.

You too are right JR. The terrorists are more humane than us. They just take care of business no questions asked. Dead right JR.

53% against torture

49% for torture.

America does not torture and will not torture. This is the change Obama is talking about.

Right JR, because pouring water on the 9/11 masterminds's head 266 times is far worse than beheading a fully conscience innocent boy.

Wow, do you really think you sound credible when you post nonsense like that?

Dan in SC: Waterboarding was considered torture during WWII and prosecuted as such with executions and imprisonment.

Reagan spoke of "international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment."
=========================================
Jack B: So I am "as disgusting as the terrorists." Do you say that because you don't believe I have the "right of free speech"? Terrorists make people afraid to speak out and live up to the American ideal. I'm sorry you don't think I'm an American. I'm sorry you don't think I "deserve to speak Reagan's name." I don't think he'd agree.

Both of you have convinced me by your words that you don't accept the values espoused by Ronald Reagan in regard to torture.

On November 29, 2007, John McCain, while campaigning in St. Petersburg, Florida, said, "Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."

Dan, do you know what you sound like when you post nonsense?

"McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning." Politifact went on to report, "A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps."

Our country had principles then and we then considered waterboarding as torture, why don't we now?

You need to have a show about how the Taliban is in Pakistan and what if anything we can do to help stabilize that situation. The taliban being 60 miles from nukes! That is scary!

A question for Mr. Will:
You commented that the lawyers involved in developing the torture memos should not be prosecuted for bad advice. That may be so but when does bad advice become malfeasance or outright deception?
If a doctor offers a patient bad advice such as eat more fat that's probably not actionable. But if the same doctor bleeds his patients or prescribes something dangerous then he is guilty of more than bad advice.
If the attorneys at the OLC knowingly concocted opinions to rationalize and justify torture or if worse they developed such opinions as a ruse to allow interrogators to seek false confessions and information that would provide legitimacy for the war in Iraq then haven't they crossed a line? Are there principles in law founded on some basic ethical constructs? And you Mr. Will, when you so often speak of adhering to the principles of the Constitution even though they may be at times inconvenient - is it somehow acceptable to engage in or justify torture as acceptable deviation from principle?
Consistency Mr. Will, consistency is the mark of intellectual honesty.

we already know terrorists will kill and maim, cause grief unspeakable for noteriety and public recognition..

the question is how we act, not how they act.. and WHY we act as we do..

i don't recall asking any terrorists permission to execute them, and wonder why a battlefield courtsmartial, or kangaroo court, isn't considered an adequate answer to those found opposing our interests. i'd personally consider it considerably less guilt-causing to HANG terrorists rather'n torturing 'em, under a brisk and efficient military style process.

Incarceration isn't sufficent, demands legal justification EVENTUALLY if you admit to it, and can't be handed off to torturers without splitting the guilt and shame..

Whether we call waterboarding torture or not, it's absolutely certain that the INTENT was in fact to apply pain and suffering sufficient to coerce results unobtainable otherwise.

The ostensible value of such results may have been overrated, underrated, or overlooked entirely.. but the results of the choice to coerce information 'to the legal limits' are fairly obvious.

IF we are, in crisis, damned and doomed to the actions of our enemies in response to their threats, we ought at the very least have the shamed conscience required to both admit it, and condemn it..

I'd be ok with a bipartisan truth commission, but the dueling headlines aspect of the partisan split on 'was it torture and was it worth it' has peeved me intensely. Ya'll who don't think it was torture and ya'll who think it was worth it, have to prove your point cause you ain't a majority this time.

So if the road to justification looks steep and muddy, that's what it costs to lose elections. Get used to it.

When the Taliban get a hold of those nukes in Pakistan then waterboarding won't be a hot topic anymore!!!

There are bigger issues on the arising that we need to worry about!!!!

Like the Taliban getting their hands on nukes!!!

God help us ALL!!!

ONE QUESTION:

If "enhanced interrogation techniques" are legal - why did the previous administration need and seek legal cover for something they claim is not against the law or violates international laws?

You know fellas it is not so much that it was or wasn't torture as it is that you would sell us down the river just to do in the previous administration. You did win the election so get over it. There is no sour grapes here just concern for our survival. I do hold to the tenet "an eye for an eye" and in my estimation they owe us a lot more eyes that we have not collected yet. I get the feeling that you would like to just invite them into our homes for coffee and doughnuts and just have a little chit chat. We hamstring our military and our intelligence community and then tell them to go out and get the job done. The libs shut down the listening in on terrorist phone conversations although they aided the intelligence community in thwarting activities that could have led to more lives being lost. They also aided in locating terrorist strongholds. But that is not good enough for you guys. You just want to make it easier for the terrorists to succeed. It just doesn't make sense to me that you would argue on the side of the terrorists. After all, "alls fair in love and war", unless you are a liberal and you want to keep the country in crisis so you have something to live for. How about some coffee and doughnuts fellas?