Author Topic: Democrats and National Security  (Read 634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rich

  • Guest
Democrats and National Security
« on: April 01, 2008, 04:52:55 PM »
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MDFmZWNiZWVlMTQ1ZGUwNmJlMWRlZDUwYjY5NjQyYzM=

  • Al-Qaeda trains its terrorists to resist known interrogation tactics, so the United States has a national-security interest in keeping such tactics secret. Congressional Democrats, however, tried to make the country?s techniques quite literally an open book: They wanted to restrict interrogators to the practices approved in the Army Field Manual, a publicly available document. Fortunately, President Bush vetoed the bill. Democrats are pretending that he acted out of enthusiasm for waterboarding. But that is not the issue: While waterboarding is rough stuff, the United States has not used it in five years, and even then employed the technique on a grand total of three terrorists. Their colleagues should not know what to expect from our interrogators, even if we know all too well what to expect from the Democrats.


  • President Bush and our intelligence agencies want to go after terrorists abroad. The Democrats and their trial-lawyer partners seem as interested in going after American businesses that have cooperated in good faith with anti-terrorism operations. That?s the short version of Nancy Pelosi?s decision to stick the stiletto into a bipartisan bill ? one supported by two-thirds of Senate Democrats ? that would have restored our intelligence agencies? ability to monitor communications among foreign terrorism suspects operating outside of the United States. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was intended to protect Americans at home from being spied on by the government without a warrant. But an unnamed judge for a secret court issued an unpublished opinion extending FISA protections to Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, China ? the whole planet. Republicans and responsible Democrats in Congress cooperated to reclaim our intelligence capabilities, but the bill they passed to do so, the Protect America Act, expired in February. Democrats in the House have refused to renew it unless congressional Republicans and the president agree to expose U.S. communications companies to billions of dollars in lawsuits for having cooperated with U.S. intelligence agencies in the wake of 9/11. As of this writing, a telephone call between Osama bin Laden and Moqtada al-Sadr, each in his Middle East hideout, enjoys the same protection as a call between a husband and wife in Topeka. That?s national defense, Pelosi-style.

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: Democrats and National Security
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2008, 01:01:14 AM »
http://www.koat.com/news/15776043/detail.html


Terrorist can still be home grown. Perhaps this guy was just "pissed off", but there could still be a few pockets of angry white men in this country. ...Remember Oklahoma.

This guy got off lucky, for sure.


« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 01:04:55 AM by Cynthia »

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
Re: Democrats and National Security
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2008, 02:31:08 PM »
Al-Qaeda trains its terrorists to resist known interrogation tactics, so the United States has a national-security interest in keeping such tactics secret. Congressional Democrats, however, tried to make the country?s techniques quite literally an open book: They wanted to restrict interrogators to the practices approved in the Army Field Manual, a publicly available document. Fortunately, President Bush vetoed the bill. Democrats are pretending that he acted out of enthusiasm for waterboarding. But that is not the issue: While waterboarding is rough stuff, the United States has not used it in five years, and even then employed the technique on a grand total of three terrorists. Their colleagues should not know what to expect from our interrogators, even if we know all too well what to expect from the Democrats.
================================================
Oh please. Like there are actually unknown interrogation tactics.

Think about it. There is not such thing as an unknown interrogation tactic, anymore than there is a secret recipe for tomato soup.

All Juniorbush has to do is make waterboarding illegal. This is eiother because he wants to have suspects waterboarded, or think they are going to be waterboarded. But there is no real issue to tortuyre, they just send the suspects to the Egyptians, Turkmen or some other satrapy to have them tortured.

The basic truth is that Juniorbush and Cheney are just stubborn pricks. Cruel, incompetent, stubborn pricks.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Rich

  • Guest
Re: Democrats and National Security
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2008, 03:05:54 PM »
>>Terrorist can still be home grown. Perhaps this guy was just "pissed off", but there could still be a few pockets of angry white men in this country. ...Remember Oklahoma. <<

So what's your point? You want the governement to strentghen domestic wiretapping?

Oh, and the DC snipers where Black, so unless you're a White liberal, color doesn't really matter.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: Democrats and National Security
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2008, 03:07:07 PM »
>>Oh please. Like there are actually unknown interrogation tactics.<<

Please, enlighten us. What exactly are these tactic the government employs?