Sunday, January 31, 2010

An Amusing Story of a Scheme

I found this hilarious story about a scheme forcing early retirement on citizens who are 50-years old and older due to the financial crisis on Velcro's wonderful blog, The Nematode.

"Due to the current financial situation caused by the slowdown in the economy, Congress has decided to implement a scheme to put workers of 50 years of age and above on early retirement, thus creating jobs and reducing unemployment.

This scheme will be known as RAPE (Retire Aged People Early).

Persons selected to be RAPED can apply to Congress to be considered for the SHAFT program (Special Help After Forced Termination).

Persons who have been RAPED and SHAFTED will be reviewed under the SCREW program (System Covering Retired-Early Workers).

A person may be RAPED once, SHAFTED twice and SCREWED as many times as Congress deems appropriate.

Persons who are not RAPED and are staying on will receive as much SHIT (Special High Intensity Training) as possible. Congress has always prided themselves on the amount of SHIT they give our citizens.

Should you feel that you do not receive enough SHIT, please bring this to the attention of your Congressman, who has been trained to give you all the SHIT you can handle.


The Committee for Economic Value of Individual Lives (E.V.I.L.)"

STOP Terror Trials in Pittsburgh; Tim Murphy Vows NO Terror Trials

That is it!!! This is the last freaking straw!!! These libtards are really pissing me off!!! BIG TIME, PISSING ME OFF!!!! I just received an email from my Representative, Tim Murphy (R-PA), that Obama and Holder are looking to move the terror trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four accomplices from NYC to another location trial , and that they are considering Western PA, and specifically right here in Pittsburgh as a place to hold the terror trials. HELL NO!!!! Tim Murphy is doing everything within his power to hault this travesty from happening. I don't want these freaking terrorists right in my backyard.

The safest place to try these terrorists and achieve justice without breaking the government's piggy bank and increasing the deficit, and keeping everyone in the United States safe is at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Having the trials at Gitmo would take care of all the issues revolving around these trials for enemy combatants or terrorists. Murphy vows NO PITTSBURGH TERROR TRIALS. Everyone in the Pittsburgh area and in PA must stand up and say no terror trials HERE. This cockamamie B.S. Must stop!!! The Obama administration seems to be doing everything in their power to undermine our national security. And, by having the trials anywhere within the United States proper they are endangering U.S. citizens' lives and exposing the United States to an increased possibility of another major terrorist attack.

For anyone to think that these extremely dangerous terrorists who plotted to kill 3000 innocent Americans, who were captured on a foreign battlefield, should receive the same rights as civilians living within the United States is absurd, despicable, irresponsible, and plain callous with respect to American lives and our safety. These people lack the necessary intelligence and conceptual ability to understand about how our military system works as opposed to the laws of common criminals within the United States. These terrorists do not have miranda rights. People who are applying American rights to terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield are displaying cultural imperialism of the worst kind.This lunacy must stop!!! We must stop these terror trials from being located in Pittsburgh or any other city within the United States. These terrorists must be tried in front of a military tribunal.

Here is the email from Rep. Tim Murphy:

As the Obama Administration seeks to move the trials of self-professed 9/11 plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four accomplices out of New York City to the Western District of Pennsylvania, Congressman Tim Murphy (PA-18) released the following statement:

“The forum shopping by the Justice Department for the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial clearly reveals the underlying problems in trying international terrorists and enemy war combatants as domestic criminals in the U.S. criminal justice system.

“We aren't talking about shoplifters or tax evaders, these terrorists are murderers of thousands of innocent Americans and have committed unspeakable acts of war against our country.

“No amount of federal funding can compensate for the risk that this trial would place on the people of Pennsylvania or any other state in our Union. It is outrageous, insensitive and misguided for the President and the Attorney General to unnecessarily jeopardize the safety of U.S. citizens by moving these trials to anywhere outside of the military base at Guantanamo.

“We are seeing universal rejection across party lines and state lines because the American people do not want the government treating terrorism as a U.S. law enforcement issue. Bringing terrorists into Pittsburgh for trial would put a target on our local judges, jurors and all the citizens of our region for a terrorist attack and is a move that that I will fight on all fronts to stop.”

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Politicians began lining up Friday against a potential trial of 9/11 terror suspects in Western Pennsylvania, where one of the hijacked airliners crashed.

"Although we are not dead set against it, we would have to hear two things," Gov. Ed Rendell said after New York's top police official said he thinks the trial won't take place there. "First, why it would be safer for Western Pennsylvania than for New York City; and second, what portion of the cost for security and other things would the federal government absorb?"

The Obama administration is drafting plans to move out of Manhattan the trials of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged accomplices, two administration officials said.

"As Pennsylvania directly experienced part of the attack on September 11th, we are acutely interested in seeing the perpetrators brought to justice," said Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato. "However, the last thing Pennsylvania needs is a terrorist trial that raises security concerns and places even more of a burden on our taxpayers."

The Sixth Amendment dictates that civilian trials for the suspects must be held in one of the areas where planes crashed Sept. 11, 2001, according to Bruce Antkowiak, a law professor at Duquesne University. That leaves the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia -- the location of the Pentagon -- or the Western District of Pennsylvania, which includes Somerset County, where United Flight 93 crashed.

"The presumption is the trial should take place in the district that the crime was committed," Antkowiak said.

Officials in this district's three federal courthouses in Downtown, Erie and Johnstown said they had no word of a move to Pennsylvania. Chief U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster said he couldn't comment on any matter that might come before the court. Federal agencies in Pittsburgh referred questions to the Justice Department.

Justice spokesman Dean Boyd said he couldn't confirm whether the trial would move, or where it would go.

"We are considering our options," he said.

Mary Beth Buchanan, the former U.S. attorney for Western Pennsylvania, said holding the trial in this district would be expensive and drain resources.

"It's impossible to predict how long this trial might take," she said, noting the complicated charges. It would tie up U.S. marshals who protect courtrooms, she said.

"It would be outrageous to put the financial burden of these trials on the citizens of Western Pennsylvania," Buchanan said.

Sens. Bob Casey Jr. and Arlen Specter said they had no information the trial would move to Pennsylvania, but they oppose the idea and told the Obama administration.

"Mayor Bloomberg has given good reasons why the trial should not be held in New York City, and that same reasoning would apply for Pennsylvania as well," said Specter, D-Philadelphia.

Specter's opponent in the May primary, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, said he supports civil trials in U.S. courts for terror suspects, no matter the location. Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey opposes holding the trial anywhere but before a military tribunal.

"Holding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial in New York City was a terrible idea from the beginning, due to the many security concerns, but moving the trial elsewhere does not solve the problem," Toomey said.

The plan to hold the trial in New York started to unravel when police Commissioner Raymond Kelly detailed costs and logistical challenges of ensuring security at the Federal Courthouse in lower Manhattan, he said.

Criticism of the plan that Attorney General Eric Holder announced last year reached a crescendo this week when Mayor Michael Bloomberg reversed his earlier support.

New York Gov. David Paterson said he was "elated that our concerns are being considered by the president and the federal government."

Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl would have similar concerns, his spokeswoman said.

"The same ones outlined by Mayor Mike Bloomberg -- that the trial could put our citizens in danger, as well as the exorbitant costs associated with the trial, something that we could not withstand," spokeswoman Joanna Doven said.

Hosting such a high-profile trial poses a slew of security challenges, from international terrorist organizations seeking to disrupt it to domestic hate groups, said Danny Defenbaugh, a security consultant and 33-year veteran of the FBI. The threats remain the same no matter where the trial takes place, he said.

"An example that is much less magnified is when we moved the Oklahoma City bombing trial from Oklahoma City to Denver," Defenbaugh said. "We still had the same types of hate groups (to guard against). It didn't matter to them whether we were in Oklahoma City or St. Louis, Mo."

Moving the trial would be a setback for President Obama. His administration spent weeks defending its handling of terror threats after the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner, which reignited the debate about whether terror suspects should face civilian or military justice.

Obama long has supported trying some terrorists in federal, civilian court, while Republicans argue terrorists should be tried in military tribunals where other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be judged.

White House spokesman Bill Burton said Obama believes Mohammed and his alleged accomplices could be successfully and securely brought to justice in a federal court.

Here is a Channel 4 news video on this matter (unfortunately embedding was disabled).  

The Obama White House -- Where Everybody Knows the Union Bosses' Names

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Karl Rove Blasts Obama Admin For Trying 9/11 Mastermind in Civilian Court

Says Bush Adm. trying Richard Reid in criminal court was a disaster...

Rove: "Fundamentally it is wrong, these are enemy combatants, why are we treating them like they're common criminals, it just makes my teeth stand on edge, when I read in the paper or hear commentators, or journalists, say the 'alleged' mastermind of the 9/11 attack, would we say Adolf Hitler is the alleged architect of the invasion of France, no we wouldn't, we'd treat him like an enemy combantant"

H/T to HotAirPundit

Hitler Responds to Obama's State of the Union Address

H/T to The Right Guy for this hilarious video.

Rush Limbaugh's Letter to Obama

Here is a letter written by Rush Limbaugh to Barack Obama. He read it out loud on his radio program. Its a great letter. I hope Obama takes his advice. Enjoy!!

I found this wonderful video via The Conservative Lady.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Marc Thiessen: Courting Disaster & Debunking the Lies Spewed by Press Regarding Interrogating Terrorists

I found this article posted on the Powerline Blog about Marc Thiessen's new book, Courting Disaster:

Today is the official publication date of Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack by Marc Thiessen. Thiessen has unusual credentials to address the subject of his book. As White House speechwriter for George Bush, Thiessen was locked in a secure room and given access to the most sensitive intelligence when he was assigned the task of writing Bush's September 2006 speech explaining the CIA's interrogation program and why Congress should authorize it. Few public figures in a position to address the subject publicly know more about these CIA operations than Thiessen. We invited Marc to explore the subject for us in connection with the publication of his book and he has kindly provided the following post:

On Christmas Day, a new terrorist network--a mysterious branch of al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula - almost succeeded in bringing down a commercial airliner over one of America's largest cities. If the plane had exploded and crashed into downtown Detroit, thousands could have perished. Only luck saved us from catastrophe.

We did not see this attack coming. By the Obama administration's own admission, we know very little about this new terror network or its plans to attack America. In Courting Disaster, I explain that the reason why we were caught by surprise on Christmas Day - and the reason why we are in growing danger of suffering another terrorist attack - is that Barack Obama has eliminated the most important tool our nation has in the fight against terror: the ability to detain and effectively interrogate senior terrorist leaders.

Intelligence is like putting together a puzzle without being allowed to see the picture on the cover. We can collect pieces of the puzzle through many means - intercepted phone calls and emails, sources we recruit inside al Qaeda. But only captured terrorists like KSM - who know the full scope their plans to attack America - can explain to us how the pieces all fit together, and show us the picture on the cover of the box.

The reason we have not suffered another attack like the one we experienced on 9/11 captured and questioned KSM and other top al Qaeda leaders and got them to share their plans. But today, thanks to Obama, we are no longer trying to capture the leaders of al Qaeda alive, and bring them in for interrogation so they can tell us what the cover of the box looks like.

Courting Disaster takes you behind the scenes at the CIA "black sites" and introduces readers to the actual interrogators who broke KSM and his fellow jihadists. It tells the story of how, in the months and years that followed 9/11, we captured many of al Qaeda's top operational leaders--the terrorists tasked with carrying out the "second wave" of attacks--and got them to tell us what they were planning. It explains how:

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the arrest of an al Qaeda terrorist named Jose Padilla, who was sent to America on a mission to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in the United States.

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the capture of a cell of Southeast Asian terrorists which had been tasked by KSM to hijack a passenger jet and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the capture of Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, KSM's right-hand-man in the 9/11 attacks, just as he was finalizing plans for a plot to hijack airplanes in Europe and fly them into Heathrow airport and buildings in downtown London.

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the capture of Ammar al-Baluchi and Walid bin Attash, just as they were completing plans to replicate the destruction of our embassies in East Africa by blowing up the U.S. consulate and Western residences in Karachi, Pakistan.

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the disruption of an al Qaeda plot to blow up the U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, in an attack that could have rivaled the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut.

Information from detainees in CIA custody helped break up an al Qaeda cell that was developing anthrax for terrorist attacks inside the United States.

In addition to helping break up these specific terrorist cells and plots, CIA questioning provided our intelligence community with an unparalleled body of information about al Qaeda--giving U.S. officials a picture of the terrorist organization as seen from the inside, at a time when we knew almost nothing about the enemy who had attacked us on 9/11.

Until the program was temporarily suspended in 2006, intelligence officials say, well over half of the information our government had about al Qaeda--how it operates, how it moves money, how it communicates, how it recruits operatives, how it picks targets, how it plans and carries out attacks--came from the interrogation of terrorists in CIA custody.

Consider that for a moment: without this capability, more than half of what we knew about the enemy would have disappeared.

Former CIA Director George Tenet has declared: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than what the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."

Former CIA Director Mike Hayden has said: "The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work."

Former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has said: "[T]his is a very, very important capability to have. This has been one of the most valuable, if not the most valuable ... human intelligence program with respect to Al Qaeda. It has given us invaluable information that has saved American lives. So it is very, very important that we have this kind of capability."

Former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has said: "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened."

Even Obama administration officials have acknowledged the value of the program.

Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has said: "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

Leon Panetta, Obama's CIA Director, has said: "Important information was gathered from these detainees. It provided information that was acted upon."

And John Brennan, Obama's top counterterrorism advisor, when asked in an interview if enhanced interrogation techniques were necessary to keep America safe, replied: "Would the U.S. be handicapped if the CIA was not, in fact, able to carry out these types of detention and debriefing activities? I would say yes."

Indeed, the official assessment of our intelligence community is that, were it not for the CIA interrogation program, "al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland."

And in his first forty-eight hours in office, President Barack Obama shut the program down.

Obama not only put a stop to the CIA interrogation program, several months later he released sensitive documents detailing our interrogation methods of high-value terrorists. With these actions, Barack Obama did arguably more damage to America's national security in his first 100 days of office than any president in American history.

In shutting down the CIA program, Obama eliminated our nation's most important tool to prevent the terrorists from striking America. And in releasing highly sensitive documents describing the details of how we have interrogated captured terrorists--and the legal limits of our interrogation techniques--Obama gave critical intelligence to the enemy.

These were two of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts an American president has ever committed in a time of war. It is as if Winston Churchill had shut down the ULTRA program which had broken German codes, and then shared secret documents detailing how it worked with the public--and thus with the Nazi leadership in Berlin. President Obama has given up a vital source of intelligence needed to protect our country. And al Qaeda will now use the information Obama released to train its operatives to resist interrogation, and thus withhold information about planned attacks. Americans could die as a result.

Today America no longer has the capability to detain and effectively question high-value terrorists. By eliminating this capability, the president is denying America's military and intelligence professionals the information they need to stop new terrorist attacks before they are carried out. And that means that America is significantly less safe today than it was when Obama took office.

This is one book that is deinitely a must read for me.

I found this video via Chris at his blog, Conservative Perspective
H/T to Powerline Blog

CBS Must Air Tim Tebow's Super Bowl Ad; Women's Pro-Abortion Groups = Anti-Choice = Pro-Death

CBS should still air Tim Tebow's Superbowl Ad!!!! What an inspiring reality story for all to hear!!!

LifeSite News states, "But Tebow’s pro-life convictions spring from an unusually personal source: back in 1987, his mother contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant with him in the Philippines, and doctors recommended abortion. Had Pam Tebow taken that advice, Tebow fans would never have seen the football phenomenon win the Heisman Trophy in 2007 and carry the Gators to victory in two major championships."

On the, Tim Tebow's father tells sports illustrated the story behind his son's birth:

“When I was out in the mountains in Mindanao, back in ’86, I was showing a film and preaching that night. I was weeping over the millions of babies being [aborted] in America, and I prayed, ‘God, if you give me a son, if you give me Timmy, I’ll raise him to be a preacher.’ ” Not long after, Bob and Pam Tebow conceived their fifth child. It was a very difficult pregnancy. “The placenta was never properly attached, and there was bleeding from the get-go,” Bob recalls. “We thought we’d lost him several times.” Early in the pregnancy Pam contracted amebic dysentery, which briefly put her in a coma. Her doctors, fearful that medications they had given her had damaged the fetus, advised her to abort it. She refused, and on Aug. 14, 1987, Pam delivered a healthy if somewhat scrawny Timothy Richard Tebow.

“All his life, from the moment he could understand, I told him, ‘You’re a miracle baby,’” Bob recalls. “‘God’s got a purpose for you, and at some point I think He’s going to call you to preach.’

“I asked God for a preacher, and he gave me a quarterback."

"At a Sunday press conference in Mobile, Tebow told the gaggle of reporters: "I know some people won't agree with [the ad], but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe, and I'm never shy about that."

"I don't feel like I'm very preachy about it, but I do stand up for what I believe. Unfortunately in today's society not many athletes tend to do that. So I'm just standing for something."

"But Tebow’s standing for pro-life values has outraged abortion advocacy groups, who fear the effect the Focus on the Family ad could have on millions of Super Bowl viewers on Feb. 7. Tebow’s story is already credited with having influenced a number of women to choose not to abort their babies."

Tim Tebow's mother chose LIFE. That is absolutely wonderful. Tim Tebow, would have NEVER EXISTED, WOULD HAVE BEEN MURDERED, if his mother had chosen to have an abortion. The Florida Gators would not have Tim Tebow, who is a top-tiered quarterback and a very skilled athlete playing for them, if Tim Tebow's mother had an abortion. SHE CHOSE LIFE!!!!

But, Unfortunately pro-abort women's groups like NOW(National Organization for women) and others want the ad planned to be aired on Superbowl Sunday to be yanked. These groups are NOT FOR CHOICE. If they really were for choice than they would have no qualms or complaints about the ad being run during the Superbowl. This display of ANTI-CHOICE by the so-called choicers displays just how committed they are to the pro-abortion or pro-death cause. These women's groups are really only for


The fact that there is a controversy over an ad that promotes a good message of life and family values shows the hypocrisy and shows that they ONLY support ONE CHOICE, the pro-death choice of these so-called pro-choice groups.

The Superbowl ad is called, “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” By these pro-choice women's groups opposing this ad, they effectively saying that we should not be celebrating Tim Tebow's wonderful life, his accomplishments, and that he should not have been born. His is a life to be celebrated. His accomplishments and life are very much worthy of praise and honoring in this TV ad.

From LifeSite News, “In the three and a half years that I advised FCC Chairman Kevin Martin on indecency issues, I can’t recall one time that NOW ever spoke out about the sexually graphic or misogynistic content on CBS,” Penny Nance, CEO for Concerned Women for America told “I find it laughable that NOW has a problem with Tim Tebow sharing his own story. If NOW really cared about women they would stop flacking for the abortion industry and start working on behalf of women.”

"There’s nothing political and controversial about it,” said Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family. “When the day arrives, and you sit down to watch the game on TV, those who oppose it will be quite surprised at what the ad is all about."

"With the Super Bowl set to kick off in about two weeks, CBS, which has already reviewed and approved the ad’s script, has given no indication of yanking the Tebow ad."

You can sign the petition here to support the decision for CBS to air the the Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad.

“CBS needs to hear the voices of those who support life and family as well,” said LSN editor, John-Henry Westen. “Therefore LSN is launching this petition addressed to CBS, asking them not to cave in to pressure to pull the Focus on the Family ad.”

"In a recent press release Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life commented on the war over the ad. "Why should it bother people who call themselves pro-choice if women watch Pam Tebow and her son Tim on Super Bowl Sunday and freely decide to choose life? Would fewer abortions be a bad thing?" he asked."

The Tim Tebow ad should still be aired.

CHOOSE LIFE: Its the choice that saves a life.

H/T to LifeSite News

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Pelosi Says: We'll Pole Vault or Parachute Health Care In

I would like to see Pelosi use a parachute or pole vault over some high wall.  Fellow conservatives, I believe its our job to build a wall high enough to STOP Nancy Pelosi & the Dems health care.  We must make sure that Pelosi, Democrats and health care all run into the wall, or that they reverse course and head back to enemy headquarters. But, then again, maybe the parachute would take her off to a far, far away place?  Who knows what would happen if she pole vaulted?  Would that be SPLAT goes the WEASEL?  I think she needs to think about her primary mode of transportation- a broomstick.  She is the wicked witch of the West. 

Charles Krauthammer Speaks on The Age of Obama & The Decline of Obama

In this video, Charles Krauthammer speaks is in front of a crowd at The Heritage Foundation, and delivers a most fascinating and brilliant speech. This speech is on The Age of Obama, and the decline of Obama. I don't want to give away too much of what's in the video but I agree with the way Krauthammer characterizes Obama's pacifism, actually all pacifism, as being a childish notion. The fact that Obama thinks that Iran is a diversion is absurd. Iran is a threat that we must take seriously, instead of tossing it aside like a hot potato and forgetting about Iran's nuclear threat. That hot potato may come back to blow up in our faces (literally- BOOM!!!) if the Obama administration ignores this grave threat to our country. The Republicans need to bring up the issue of Iran often, so Obama cannot ignore this threat that Iran poses to the citizens of this great country. This speech itself is about 35 minutes long and starts (guessing here) about 5 minutes in from where the video begins. Enjoy!!! Grab a coffee or soda, and a snack and relax.

Warning: Get ready for a lot of cleavage.

Charles Krauthammer Speech

If you have trouble watching the video on my blog with it stopping constantly, you can watch it here.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

My Thoughts on The State of the Union Address

Here are Thoughts on both Obama's speech and Bob McDonnell's speech.

I hope that Obama and the Congress do focus primarily on job creation. But, with policies like Cap & Trade and Government run health care, I fear that they will be job killers. Obama played the blame game on many fronts. This has to stop!! There has been no president in history that has played the blame game so much like Obama has over the past year. He is such a freaking crybaby. Waaa!! Waaa!! That is not acting presidential, but rather like a whiny child. It is clear that the first stimulus failed. The Stimulus did not produce any new jobs. This country has lost around 2.8 million more jobs since the Porkulus was signed by Obama. Obama thinks that the economy is doing better and that we are out of a recession. That is a bunch of hooey. Is Obama living in some delusion? Or a quasi-reality? Just recently, there have been two bad signs that the economy has not recovered from this awful recession- the biggest decline in existing home sales in over 40 years. Existing home sales fell 17% and new home sales dropped more than expected, also. These are not signs of a recovery!! Obama is obviously not living in reality. Maybe, its wishful thinking on his part?

I thought Bob McDonnell's Republican response was quite impressive. He looked and sounded top notch. He talked about the common ground between Democrats and Republicans, while also pointing out the substantial differerences in policies like national security.  McDonnell also pointed out how Republicans have offered common sense alternatives to the Democrats health care bills. I love how McDonnell invoked Jefferson in his speech -- “It was Thomas Jefferson,” McDonnell said, “who called for ‘A wise and frugal government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry .... and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.’ He was right. Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much.” I can't wait to hear more in the future from Bob McDonnell.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Remembering The March For Life -- Abortion is Murder Part 1

I have very fond memories of attending the March For Life. I always enjoyed attending the March and loved the opportunity to express my voice of discontent and outrage to a government that legalized the murder of innocent human beings. I started attending the March For Life with my Mom when I was in 7th grade and continued to go through high school, rode on a bus starting at midnight from Steubenville in college, and even attended a March for Life with my husband after returning to Maryland. This is one of my passions. I know that the unborn baby is alive and killing the baby is murder. But, out of selfishness our government promotes the killing of vulnerable unborn babies out of a so-called "choice." Our government has given into the devil. Any government that allows the murder of innocent unborn babies is EVIL and promoting EVIL and allowing EVIL to happen. We must stop this INFANTICIDE!!!! We must stop future generations from being murdered. We must keep on fighting the good fight against this evil government that authorizes and promotes the new slavery- ABORTION. We must continue to speak up and fight so that Roe vs. Wade is overturned. I wasn't able to go on the March for Life because of college classes but I did attend the Virtual March for life and find these video for you to see. This is the first of two posts on abortion and the March for Life.

Here are examples of two different ways abortions are performed:

Fr. Frank Pavone explains a suction abortion

Dismemberment Abortion

Let us continue to fight to stop abortion. 

Monday, January 25, 2010

As The Amoebic Parasitic Disease Runs Rampant....

An amoebic parasitic disease known as far leftist liberalism has been permeating the minds of all Congressional Democrats and RINOS in Washington this past year. This amoebic parasitic disease consists of :

And, then, a cataclysmic earthquake rocked the Democratic world last Tuesday when Scott Brown was elected as Senator of Massachusetts. After Tuesday, certain people like Jim Webb, Barney Frank, and Evan Bayh have had some healing of their amoebic diseases and are backpedaling on health care "reform." But others like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama still have this parasitic disease taking over their lives and insisting on forcing health care "reform" down our throats even though a majority of citizens want the Dems version of health care "reform" stopped. They are promoting tyranny and ignoring the will of the people. The people of MA have spoken because of the following: Democrats and their demagoguery of Obama, his “hope and change” mantra that in fact spawned a new wave of corruption to the enth degree, the realization of Obama campaign trail lies, lack of transparency, lack of bi-partisanship, radicalism and the Obama’s “re-making” or radicalizing of America, abandoning the principles laid out by our Founding Fathers, Democrats abandoning the rules of military law and American principles by accommodating terrorists or enemy combatants in giving them added benefits and rights only due to a civilian in America. Yes, this is the reason people voted for Scott Brown on Tuesday. But, unfortunately there is still an amoebic parasitic disease running rampant through the veins of Pelosi, Reid, Obama and their ilk.

This administration is confusing our brave men and women in the military who are serving overseas on how exactly they should handle captured terrorists on the battlefield with regards to miranda rights. How ludicrous, giving miranda rights to our enemy. This is so absurd. First, Obama has been appeasing and apologizing to the world and showing great weakness to other countries. He decides to close Gitmo to please his liberal base without having a plan on how to do so. That is a sign of an inept leader. That is a leader not having a clue. Maybe, the amoebic parasite has taken over his body and he's insane? What sane person would do and allow for these ludicrous and unconscionable things?

Obama is spreading the “love” of the terrorists all around, some to NYC, some to Thomson Correctional Facility in Illinois, some back to terrorist sympathizing countries, and some are staying in Gitmo whereby all these are endangering many, many American lives. Lo and behold the terrorists have filed complaints to stop their transfer to Thomson so that they can stay at Gitmo. If Gitmo is really all that bad than why do the terrorists want to stay at Gitmo? Or is it that the left has demonized Gitmo falsely?

Eric Holder and Obama are a bunch of cherry picking people who are political opportunists cherry picking principles of the Geneva Convention for political expediency. Eric Holder and Obama has been cherry picking the application of the Geneva convention rules and also cherry picking which detainees the Geneva Convention applies to. They are skirting around International military laws to fit their own political agenda instead of actually caring about the safety of American citizens. This is unconscionable!!! But, putting politics over American safety is not a new concept for Democrats.

The Obama administration is bending over backwards and accommodating a terrorist who is accusing a Navy Seal of punching him while the terrorist was being detained and transferred. If the Navy Seal’s accuser is not able to come to the United States than the charges should be dropped immediately. In fact, the Seals should have never been charged in the first place. The Navy Seals captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq- mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. But, this administration is forcing one those Navy Seal's, who is accused of punching a terrorist (oh poor baby terrorist!!), and this administration is dragging him to face his terrorist accuser all the way to Iraq because for some odd reason the terrorist can’t be brought to the U.S. This is one of the most ridiculous, abhorrent and unamerican things to ever to be done in the history of the United States. All of these inconsistencies are incomprehensible. Obama’s methods of engaging terrorism is one of complete chaos. This just blows my mind. This is unconscionable!! These three Navy Seals should be revered as heroes and instead our military or one commander and the Obama administration has made a mockery of Navy seals bringing justice to this terrorist. The terrorist is playing both the military and the Obama administration for fools. Well, It is obvious that this amoebic parasitic disease is spreading and is affecting people's mental abilities. We must keep up fighting the good fight against these amoebas.


Sunday, January 24, 2010

The Kicker of St. John's Wood by Gary Wolf -- A Review by Teresa Rice

I am reviewing a book called, The Kicker of St. John's Wood. The author of the book is Gary Wolf he had this book published by iUniverse. The Kicker of St. John's Wood consists of ten chapters and 208 pages. As the author states in the blurb on the back cover of the book:

"This is a story of America in the year 2020: Fractured socially and politically, its enemies are gaining ground and its civil liberties are threatened like never before.

Jayesh Blackstone, a professional football player, finds himself at the focal point of an historic experiment: a woman is going to play in a football game, and it will happen in the Super Bowl. It turns out that this is just a foretaste of the metamorphosis that is taking shape. The very same event is the venue for an announcement by world leaders of a new order, one that defines humanity exclusively in terms of race and gender."

The Kicker of St. John's Wood, is a most captivating novel which at times reads like a satirical romance and at other times like a fast-paced spy thriller. The picture on the front cover in an abrupt fashion illustrates the absurdity of political correctness and how it is being thrust upon the American people. But, this novel is about much more than political correctness running amok. It is about Anti-Americanism being cloaked as political correctness, threatening one of America's favorite pastimes -- football. But, it is also about Anti-Americanism threatening and undermining American values, American way of life, and the very foundation of this country both internally and externally. One of the conflicts presented in the novel is that Jayesh, the kicker, has to come to grips with the reality that for the first time in the history of football a woman will be holding the football, while he kicks the football all in the name of gender equality. I don't want to give away too much, but I can tell you this: that is only the beginning. Its a page turner from there. The ending has me craving for more and it leaves open great possibilities for new and exciting adventures in the future. This novel, while a complete and satisfying story in itself, could serve as the prelude to a much larger and even more satisfying work, much as J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit was both a stand-alone novel and the prelude to The Lord of The Rings. I highly recommend that everyone read Gary Wolf's book, The Kicker of St. John's Wood. Please check out his other books at his website as well.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Who is The Real Enemy of Islam?

Ralph Peters asks whether our media is going to capitalize on this very important study which reveals information that Al-Qaeda primarily targets non-Westerners as opposed to Westerners? Scott Helfstein, Nassir Abdullah and Muhammad al-Obaidi have compiled this substantially useful report. But, Ralph Peters asks the question, will we use it? I hope we do, but knowing how our Left Stream Media (MSM) and the way liberals today operate with promoting their anti-American propaganda and hate America policies, as well as tapping into the Muslims' philosophy of hate for us, while at the same time vilifying our military for them doing their superb jobs, I doubt it. The media is the main reason we lost in Vietnam. If the media hadn't put their negative spin on it and played right into the hands of the enemy we would have had a much better chance of winning in Vietnam. But, public relations is extremely important in aiding the winning of wars and the media was hell bent on advancing our enemy to victory by promoting everything that happened that was negative in Vietnam. The liberals and MSM are now playing the same political game now with regards to both Iraq and Afghanistan. They are promoting the negative of both wars while endangering the lives of our brave men and women who are serving in the military overseas. They want the wars to go bad. Instead of putting a positive spin and promoting the defeat of Muslim Jihadists who want to kill us as well as innocent non-Westerners, the media is promoting the negative, aiding the enemy in their efforts promoting a bad PR campaign just as they did in Vietnam. Instead of rooting for the United States, our Left Stream Media is basically being a voice for our enemy. They are promoting anti-Americanism and hate U.S. policies today just as liberals did back in Vietnam. This should be either considered treasonous or seditious. The left spews so much hate for our military that they would rather them lose lives, lose wars, just so they could win a political battle. This is utterly despicable. This is outrageous. We must make sure that this valuable information gets out to the public so people can see the truth about the military and what damage Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have done to Muslims or non-Westerners.

Here is the article written by Ralph Peters:

AL Qaeda does one thing ex tremely well: killing Muslims. Between 2006 and 2008, only 2 percent of the terror multinational's victims were Westerners.
The rest were citizens of Muslim countries. Even as al Qaeda claims to be their defender.

I've long complained that we fail to capitalize on al Qaeda's blood thirst in our information operations. Al Qaeda (as well as the Taliban and other insurgent groups) slaughters Muslims -- yet we let the media flip the blame to us.
Last weekend, a Pentagon insider passed me a no-nonsense study recently released by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. "Deadly Vanguards: A Study of al Qaeda's Violence Against Muslims" is exactly the kind of work our analysts should produce -- but rarely do.

Using exclusively Arabic-language media reports and including only those incidents for which al Qaeda proudly claimed responsibility, this scrupulously documented study explodes the myth of al Qaeda as a champion of Muslims:

* Between 2004 and 2008, only 15 percent of al Qaeda's victims were Westerners, and that number skewed upward because of the Madrid and London attacks.

* Between 2006 and 2008, a non-Westerner was 54 times likelier to die in an al Qaeda attack than a Westerner.

* "Outside of the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, 99 percent of al Qaeda's victims were non-Western in 2007 and 96 percent were non-Western in 2008."

Bravo to Scott Helfstein, Nassir Abdullah and Muhammad al-Obaidi for producing this supremely useful report. Now the question is: Will we use it?

The propaganda skills of our enemies eclipse our timid, lawyer-ridden information operations. In the Muslim world, we get blamed even for al Qaeda's proudest massacres of Muslims -- while Pakistanis blame us for Taliban suicide bombings.

As this report documents, we possess facts that could be wielded as weapons. But we're no more willing to fight an aggressive information war than we are to wage a serious ground war against our enemies.

Personally, I was astonished -- and delighted -- that this hard-headed report came out of West Point, the most politically correct major institution in the US Army, now dedicated to the proposition that killing our nation's enemies is so yesterday. Is there new hope for the stumbling Long Gray Line?

Back to al Qaeda: Our porcine intelligence system doesn't bother to ask the basic question of why al Qaeda kills Muslims so avidly. (Even conservative Muslim scholars are questioning al Qaeda's practices.)

The answer's as clear as a sunny day in the desert: Al Qaeda fully reflects its Saudi parentage. Neither the Saudis nor al Qaeda cares a whit about individual Muslims. They only care about Islam.

I've seen, in country after country, how the Saudis sacrifice the well-being and human potential of countless Muslims in order to prevent them from integrating into local societies and to promote the dour Wahhabi cult that has deformed Islam so horribly: purity matters, people don't.

Likewise, al Qaeda is happy to sacrifice any number of Muslims to promote its neo-Wahhabi death cult. The al Qaeda serpent may have turned on the Saudi royals, but their differences are a matter of degree.

Meanwhile, we imagine that our passivity and "tolerance" are virtues. We fail to capitalize on al Qaeda's horrendous record, while our government protects the Saudi-funded extremists who poison American mosques.
(Our leaders blather about "freedom of religion," ignoring the fact that there's no freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. Can't we prohibit religious funding from states that don't themselves exercise tolerance? We're being idiotic, not virtuous.)
We continue to hear endless nonsense from Washington about how "soft power" is so much more effective than military force. OK, show us. Three good men at West Point have given us a powerful information weapon against al Qaeda.

Will our leaders have the sense to use it?

Here is the Report

H/T to Washington Post

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

LTC Allen West Discusses Obama, MLK, Race Relations & Other Issues

LTC Allen West, US Army (Ret) discusses many issues surrounding the Obama presidency.  He is a great patriot.  This is an interesting interview.

This is an interesting article on how Obama has confused and endangered our military's lives due to his lackadasical policies on terrorism.

Thanks Obama: U.S. Commanders in Afghanistan ‘Confused’ about How To Handle Captured Terrorists

Washington ( – Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), just back from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said he and other senators found operational “confusion” among U.S. military officials on how to handle detained enemy combatants.

“From the top to the bottom, the military, the American military people that we talked to, indicated some confusion, operationally, about what you do when you detain a terrorist,” McConnell said at a press conference on Tuesday.

The Republican delegation, which McConnell led, included Republican Sens. Mike Crapo (Idaho), Roger Wicker (Miss.), and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), the Senate GOP Conference vice-chairwoman

After pointing out that a U.S. military general declined to answer questions about the handling of insurgent detainees without the presence of his lawyer, the minority leader said: “This operational confusion has . . . been created, it strikes me, unnecessarily and, frankly, dangerously, by the administration.”

McConnell criticized the administration, in particular, for recently handing over the so-called underwear bomber, Nigerian terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to criminal courts rather than to the military.

“This sort of preoccupation, if you will, that we see on full display here in the U.S., with the example of the Christmas would-be bomber being turned over — not to the military for interrogation, but to criminal courts — and told he is entitled to a lawyer, is a mentality that I think is very dangerous in the war on terror,” the minority leader said.


When All Else fails Liberals Resort to Ad Hominem Attacks

Liberals usually resort to ad hominem attacks when they have no leg to stand on, when they have no argument.  This post is called coercion and torture on Vox Nova.  This is why liberalism has infected Catholicism.  Now the disease unfortunately runs throughout Catholicism.  This post is yet one more example of this. The liberals didn't know the difference between a Military Tribunal and a Civilian Trial and I didn't feel like it was my place to give them a high school social studies lesson.  This proves how low even  a so-called friend will allow his liberal friends to go. Here is the part of the conversation that I was involved in and where it led to:

Kevin Rice Says:

January 18, 2010 at 9:40 am

I believe that a terrorist in custody who withholds information to aid in a threat against civilian holds the power and holds the cards that are the key to stopping the threat against innocent civilians and indeed are still a threat both to civilians but even to the place where they are being detained as well. I do not believe that the terrorist is powerless since he controls the key to the information that will in fact harm innocent lives. In a scenario where the CIA agents only have a limited amount of time and cannot court him to talking I believe that coercion is the only possible way to obtain information.Kevin Rice Says:   This was actually me. I accidentally left Kevin's name in the box.

January 18, 2010 at 9:57 am

Oops! Teresa wrote the above comment but either she did not change the name or the computer messed with her (it messes with me all the time).

What she wrote is better than what I would have written. I will only add that I think a terrorist who is involved in a plot and who could stop it with a phone call or by imparting the information he has to authorities is not rendered harmless merely by being physically captured and detained. The idea that the only significant threat of harm a person like that can pose is the physical harm he can dole out in his immediate vicinity with fists, feet, blades, bullets or chest-strapped booby-trap bombs is a crude one. Even captured and personally disarmed, he remains a threat as long as he withholds the information necessary to eliminate the danger. By withholding that information, he continues to participate in murder and mayhem.

Rodak Says:

January 18, 2010 at 10:43 am

You speak of “the terrorist” in custody. Are you limiting your comments, then, to persons who have been tried and convicted of an act of terrorism? If that had been the case, then presumably most, or all, of that person’s relevant information would already have come into the hands of authorities in the course of investigation and trial. Or are you willing to torture men and women in order simply to find out if they might have information that could be used to stop future acts of terror? In other words, are you willing to risk torturing the innocent in order to prevent a hypothetical future event, which other events might well conspire to prevent in any case?

And for how long after a person is taken into custody can it be expected that his information will remain “actionable?” If he is a “terrorist” and it is known that he’s been captured, won’t his fellow terrorists realize that he may be disclosing information–with or without having been tortured–and altered their plans?

Do you completely discount those veteran interrogators who insist that torture is a poor way to get good information? Have you forgotten about all those “witches,” back in the day, who confessed to having sex with devils under torture?

Finally, will you risk losing your soul in order to protect the security of your world?

Kevin Rice Says:

January 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm

My answer to nearly all of your questions is NO, except for ‘If he is a “terrorist” and it is known that he’s been captured, won’t his fellow terrorists realize that he may be disclosing information–with or without having been tortured–and altered their plans?’. My answer to that is “Not necessarily.” But I am concerned with real terrorists, not “terrorists” with dismissive scare quotes.

To put it as succinctly as I can, I do not believe that coercion or even torture is always wrong, necessarily and intrinsically. But that hardly makes me an enthusiastic supporter of torture, does it? I am not in favor of using these techniques as a matter of policy just to find out whether a terror suspect is the kind of sustained threat that would justify using these techniques on him in order to render him truly harmless.

Teresa Says:

January 18, 2010 at 12:33 pm

I am not for the willy-nilly use of coercion. I don’t believe our government targets perceived non-threats in a willy-nilly fashion either. When a terrorist is known to be hiding a plot that he is involved in or that other terrorists are planning I believe that it is in our country’s national security interests and the country’s duty to find out the truth about the terrorist plot. And, if that means allowing the use of coercion in those circumstances in order to neutralize the threat and stop terrorists from harming or killing many innocents than I can in good conscience allow those techniques to be used on rare occasions and I believe my soul can take solace in the fact that our brave men and women are doing all they can to prevent innocnt lives from being killed.

David Nickol Says:

January 18, 2010 at 12:39 pm


You have tossed aside the premises of the two messages written under the name of Kevin Rice and are criticizing an argument other than the one they made. They’re talking about the ticking time bomb scenario, and the premises are that you know the person in custody is a terrorist, you know there is a ticking time bomb, and you know the terrorist has, and is withholding, the information about how to disarm the bomb.

The presumption of innocence is an important principle in our legal system, but it is very limited. It does not prevent the proper authorities from apprehending and imprisoning suspects. And suppose one or several persons were holding a group of hostages and executing one per day until their demands were met. If the only way to put an end to the hostage situation were to kill the hostage takers, they would not be protected by the presumption of innocence.

Also, the Rice messages talk of coercion, and you talk of torture. I think we have established that “truth serum” would be considered coercion. The ticking time bomb scenario is usually used to raise ethical questions about torture, but in this case the Rice messages do not specify torture, and Kyle Kupp’s original post specifically sets aside questions of torture in order to consider other techniques of coercive interrogation.

The ticking time bomb scenario is very unlikely, but it is not impossible. I don’t think we should base our laws on highly unlikely scenarios. I do not think it is difficult to imagine situations in which all the premises of the ticking time bomb scenario are present and one is faced with a situation where you have someone in custody whom you know possesses knowledge that, if extracted, will allow you to save innocent lives. There are any number of television shows that invent variations on the ticking time bomb scenario once a week.

Kyle R. Cupp Says:

January 18, 2010 at 1:45 pm

A few thoughts on the recent comments:

1. It’s fair to consider a known terrorist in custody as dangerous and a wielder of power, and we’d be naïve to consider him otherwise, but those realities or potentialities do not negate the fact that the terrorist is in custody and that his being in custody ethically prohibits certain actions against him that might be called for on the battlefield.

2. If coercion and torture can be justly used or are sometimes the only means available to save innocent lives, why keep their use to a minimum? Why use them rarely? If they are effective methods for keeping us safe, why not use them more often?

3. I’ve been following the debate over interrogation techniques for some time, and what I (and others) have noticed is that the people who once justified coercion and sometimes torture (yes, by that name) in cases of the “ticking-time-bomb scenario” now justify their use in many more situations. What was argued for as the exception is now argued for as the rule. Why? Perhaps because if torture and coercion are acceptable (if not good) actions to keep us safe in the one situation, then it’s difficult to say why they should be avoided, morally speaking, in many other situations.

4. I cannot stress enough that the aim of keeping us safe cannot alone make means and methods aimed at safety just, not without embracing a moral relativism in which the realm of self-defense is held outside the moral law. Just because an action keeps us safe doesn’t make the action just. We may even find ourselves in a situation in which it seems the only way of saving lives is to commit a truly evil act. That situation doesn’t render the evil act good.

Rodak Says:

January 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm


Under our system of law, a suspect does not have to answer any question which would incriminate him; much less should he fear being tortured. We can stick to what made us great, or “we” can become like “them.”

Moreover, I don’t see that the two Kevins have restricted their tolerance for torture to the “ticking bomb scenario.” Nor have the Americans who have been using “enhanced interrogation” techniques. There has not been, and almost never would be, such a scenario in the real world.

All of that said, the ends don’t justify the means for moral agents. For amoral and pragmatic materialists, they do.

David Nickol Says:

January 18, 2010 at 4:32 pm

All of that said, the ends don’t justify the means for moral agents.


This is such a cliche and a cop out. If the end don’t justify the means, what does? Now, not any end justifies any means. And some means may never be justified. But some are justifiable. The principle of double effect is invoked frequently in Catholic discussions. If a woman is pregnant and wants to get rid of the baby, she may not do so. If a pregnant woman has cancer of the uterus and removing the uterus (along with the baby, which will surely die) is necessary to save her life, the end (saving her life) justifies the means (removing the uterus even though the baby will die). The end justifies proportionate means. The Church (at least up until very recently) endorsed capital punishment — but not for shoplifting. It is a case of the end, in extreme circumstances, justifying extreme means.

Under our system of law, a suspect does not have to answer any question which would incriminate him;

Grant him immunity from prosecution. He no longer has a Fifth Amendment right to withhold what he knows. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

What Kevin and Teresa are saying, as I read them, is that there are some circumstances in which coercion (they never used the word torture may be used to extract life-saving information from a known, would-be murderer. I think there is a reasonable argument that torture may never be used (although I don’t necessarily agree with it), but this thread is about any form of coercion, and I don’t agree that something like truth serum, or hypnosis, or some other means to subvert the will is always impermissible.

Suppose a lie-detector test could be administered that would reveal the information against the terrorist’s will. Would that be impermissible?

David Nickol Says:

January 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm

Just because an action keeps us safe doesn’t make the action just.


But just because an action is one that should be used only under extreme circumstances does not make it evil. Police use deadly force too often, in my opinion, but I would not argue it is never justified. I can imagine situations in which police snipers would be justified in killing someone holding hostages and executing them one by one. But not every hostage situation need be ended by killing the hostage taker. And deadly force is certainly not justifiable to stop a shoplifter or some other petty criminal in the act.

It seems reasonable to me to say that authorities must limit themselves to the use of proportionate means, and in a ticking time bomb situation, those means may be more extreme than in many other situations.

If someone who has been granted immunity refuses to testify in court and is held in contempt, does imprisoning them indefinitely until they will talk constitute coercion?

Teresa Says:

January 18, 2010 at 5:07 pm

Actually in the real world the “ticking time bomb” does exist today. Realists understand the grave threat that these terrorists pose to this world, unlike normative thinkers who do not live in the reality or the now, and want us to live in a fantasy land that that they believe should exist.

amoral is being against saving lives. People who force their morality of the normative state, and make judgments that allow others to die, instead of facing the reality of the threat, are not facing the reality of the threat like rational human beings. In addition, people who perceive that they are taking a moral high ground even though that moral high ground may in effect aid in or allow the killing of innocent lives may be relying on theories of peace from a textbook that is not applicable in the real world. Using coercion is along the same lines as self-defense but national security is much more important because that affects more lives.

Rodak Says:

January 18, 2010 at 5:15 pm

“This is such a cliche and a cop out.”

It’s an abbreviation, but neither a cliche’ nor a cop-out. It is usually understood to mean that instrinsically evil means never justify even the best of ends. If one does not believe torture to be intrinsically evil, then one will use it with impunity, to be sure. If there is a price to be paid for that, it probably won’t be paid in this life.

All of the torture advocates commenting here keep putting forth scenarios in which violent means are used to subdue evildoers who are free and in the act of harming others; no argument with that.

The scenario in which the alleged terrorist is in custody, however, raises completely different issues. Granting a prisoner immunity so as to be able to torture him is a drastic perversion of our rule of law. Does he have the right not to accept that immunity? Are you really proposing to torture him, and then set him free because he can’t be prosecuted for his involvement in the crimes you force him to talk about? The hypotheticals that the torture advocates introduce to the discussion may make good debating points, but they seem to bear little relevance to what might reasonably be expected to transpire in the real world.

Rodak Says:

January 18, 2010 at 5:21 pm

“People who force their morality of the normative state, and make judgments that allow others to die, instead of facing the reality of the threat, are not facing the reality of the threat like rational human beings.”

We are all going to die. And some of us, unfortunately, are going to die violently. Would you also ban the ownership and use of private automobiles because of the certainty that thousands of people will be killed on the highways every year? The world is not safe place to live. Never will be. But it is a place in which one can choose to live morally, even if that means accepting some risk.

Alien Shore Says:

January 18, 2010 at 5:22 pm

The principle of double effect is indeed invoked in Catholic discussions precisely because the ends do not justify the means. That’s not a cop out on Rodak’s part. St. Paul said that one may not do evil that good may come.

First, double effect is more concerned with ends than means. Basically, an evil or undesirable end can be tolerated if the good end intended is proportionate or greater. However, those who invoke double effect are quick to point out that the means used to achieve the desired good end must itself be moral or at least neutral.

In the example you give of the cancerous uterus, the means is a surgical procedure to remove the uterus. The intended end is to remove the cancer and save the life of the woman. The end tolerated is that the fetus will also die. But, those Catholics who invoke double effect would typically tell you that a direct abortion is never justified, even for a good end such as saving a mother’s life.

Sure, certain extreme ends might call for extreme means. But it is not on that basis that the means finds its moral justification.

That is basic Catholic moral teaching.

Teresa Says:

January 18, 2010 at 5:40 pm


You mention the intension with regards to double effect and the removal of the uterus in order to save a person’s life.

It seems to me that coercive techniques being used to save innocent lives is also making use of a good intension- the intension to save lives.

Teresa Says:

January 18, 2010 at 5:53 pm

You comparing automobiles with terrorists is nonsensical. There is a HUGE difference between automobile accidents and terrorists or terrorist attacks. Automobile accidents are just that, accidents, whereas terrorist attacks are well thought and purposeful. Are you saying that we should ignore a kidnapping because what the heck it might be the kids time to die? Or a teenager in a car accident? Oops, no medical help for you because you might as well die sooner than later. Your above statement is extremely callous.

So, you don’t think that every life is precious.

Alien Shore Says:

January 18, 2010 at 7:02 pm


Correct. The end in view, or intention, is to save innocent lives. So if the principle that the ends doesn’t justify the means is true, whether a given “coercive technique” is justifiable is not able to be determined by the intention.

You seem to be saying that a good intention is the means (i.e. “making use of a good intension”). I don’t see, at least in Catholic moral theology, that a good intention–and end–can be converted to become the means. One does not “make use” of the desire to save innocent lives to save innocent lives. One makes use of a means in order to achieve a desired end. So I would disagree that employing coercive techniques is identical to making use of a good intention. That would seem to conflate means with ends.

David Nickol Says:

January 18, 2010 at 7:30 pm

Are you really proposing to torture him . . .


I am willing to grant (at least for the sake of this discussion) that torture is intrinsically evil, and consequently is never allowable. However, what I am discussing here is this statement Kyle Kupp’ made: “I oppose all coercive interrogation techniques, whether or not those techniques fall into the category of torture.” He has, in effect, declared all coercive techniques to be intrinsically evil. Is the use of truth serum or hypnosis intrinsically evil? I don’t know how that can be maintained. Kupp says, “To be sure, we may take away a person’s liberty by putting him in prison, but the prisoner is for that imprisonment no less of a free, moral agent, capable of making free, moral decisions.” Try telling a person who is imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to testify that imprisonment is not coercion. It is, and it is intended to be. Remember Susan McDougal, who wouldn’t answer three questions about Whitewater? She spent 18 months in prison for refusing to talk. Remember Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who refused to reveal a source and spent 85 days in jail because of it? Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court’s order continues: once the party complies with the court’s order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to “hold the keys” to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process.

Incarceration for contempt of court is clearly coercive, and I can’t see how Kupp is going to consider it justifiable if a person may never be coerced to tell what they know.

Teresa Says:

January 18, 2010 at 7:39 pm

In a non-Catholic view or in a realist view, I must disagree since the use of coercion intention would be to save multiple lives whereas the unintentional killing of a life is in order to save one life. I think the benefits of using coercive techniques outweighs the risks. Plus, the benefits of the use of coercive techniques could be great as opposed to the detriment to life if not used.

Rodak Says:

January 18, 2010 at 7:54 pm


Susan McDougall, it seems to me, illustrates and supports Kyle’s argument, rather than yours. Although she was imprisoned, she remained free NOT to testify. Her will was not coerced, although her freedom of movement was severly curtailed. In prison, she continued to do that which she was doing prior to prison, which was to refuse to cooperate with the demands of the court. Had she been administered a truth serum, or been hypnotised, her will would have been suborned, in effect, by force; this would have been a violation of her human dignity and, from a Christian viewpoint, a sin.

Rodak Says:

January 18, 2010 at 7:56 pm

NOTE: I meant to say it would have been “an evil”–although, for someone, it would also have been a sin, I suppose…

Kyle R. Cupp Says:

January 18, 2010 at 8:37 pm


You wrote:

But just because an action is one that should be used only under extreme circumstances does not make it evil.

I agree.

In response to your question about whether or not imprisoning someone who refuses to testify in court constitutes coercion, I think it depends. Certainly in the broad meaning of coercion it qualifies. The court is attempting to force a person to testify. However, I’m not sure the aim or the effect is to render the person incapable of making free, rational decisions. I suppose if someone had a great fear of prison to where imprisoning him would cause such mental or emotional anguish that the person began to lose the capacity for free, rational decision making, then I would consider the imprisonment coercive in the narrow sense to which always and everywhere I object.

I should add that my saying something is intrinsically evil doesn’t necessarily mean that it is very, very bad. I think use of a truth serum would be immoral because of what it does not a person’s will, but I don’t hold it to be as grave a matter as, say, torture, or even necessarily as some actions that are not intrinsically, but are rather conditionally evil.

Alien Shore Says:

January 18, 2010 at 8:58 pm


I believe we are talking past one another here. First, I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with since I didn’t state a position with regard to the rightness or wrongness of coercion. What I did was to say that the intention to save lives and the means employed are not the same. Calling it a “coercion intention” doesn’t change that. I can intend to coerce someone to achieve the intention, or end, of saving lives. In the context of this discussion, one is not so much intending to coerce as if coercing were the end to be achieved. Another way to say it, I may intend to employ coercion as a means to the end of saving lives. An end can be an intention, but not all intentions are ends in terms of double effect.

I was replying to a previous comment on double effect. Because this is a Catholic blog and double effect is present more so in Catholic moral reasoning, I referred to Catholic moral thought. But double effect is not foreign to moral philosophy in general. It is not exclusively the property of Catholic moral thought. If we are appealing to double effect, then we need to use it correctly. My original response to you was because you suggested in light of double effect, that coercion was “making use” of the intention to save lives, essentially converting an end to a means. Regardless of whether Kyle is right about coercion, what I was pointing out is that your use of double effect was not in keeping with the principle itself. When you are talking about unintentional killing, coercion, saving lives and so on, you need to identify, if you appeal to double effect, which is an means, which is an intended end, and which is an unintended end. You are essentially tossing the terms around trying to get them to fit without any real regard to the formal structure of double effect.

For the record, I think (along with Anscombe) that double effect, while a valid form, has been the most abused and misused principle among Catholic moral thinkers. When misused I think it can help one avoid difficult moral issues. Not good.

Lastly, I have no idea what you mean by a non-Catholic or realist view. What non-Catholic view are you appealing to? They are not all a single piece. Plus, what do you mean by realist? In Catholic moral theology, especially conservative, realism is generally considered to be the Catholic position. At least metaphysically. I am going to deduce that by realism you just mean the way the “real world” is out there. Discussing the realities of the world is neither Catholic or non-catholic necessarily.

In any case, the “real world” shows us that the abstract principles of moral reasoning don’t always fit neatly. Yet, we do not jettison moral reasoning on that account. Your approach from what I have read on this thread seems to be more of a consequentialist approach–i.e. we don’t want this bad thing (and killing innocent lives is indeed bad) so anything that stops this bad thing is good by that fact. In the theological/philosophical sense, this position is anything but realist. In the sense of the “real world out there” a better approach than consequentialism might be what I would call a “phronetic” approach. Following Aristotle, Paul Ricoeur referred to the role of phronesis, or practical judgment, when addressing that gray area between the objective, abstract moral principle and the real world situations that don’t easily fit into the idea.

Ricoeur’s approach (which I can’t explain here. I’ve already gone on too long) takes seriously moral reasoning while recognizing the difficulties presented by that pesky real world. Yet he does it without falling prey to dogmatism with regard to the abstract nor does he fall prey to the consequentialism which is an easy out when moral principles don’t fit nicely.

And I thought Kyle might enjoy a Ricoeur reference since he is clearly a Ricoeur enthusiast (as I am). :-)

Of course, I may be wrong as to what you mean by realist. If you mean it in the philosophical sense, you are wrong and my point stands. If you mean it in the sense that I have described about the “real world” then you are wrong and my point stands.

Gerald A. Naus Says:

January 19, 2010 at 1:17 am

Torture usually doesn’t render valid results. Not when the Catholic Church did it, nor now that the US engages in it. People will confess to anything just to make the pain stop – in the Middle East, being gay is one thing men frequently “confess” to, in addition to a laundry list of crimes.

Frequently, the tortured will implicate others, no matter if they’re guilty or not. They then vanish into one of the CIA planes, without charge, without lawyer, without rights. This is what the US always claimed to be against. To

it’s credit, the military did not want to get involved in it – as far back as the Revolutionary War, the US prided itself on treating prisoners well. The US had worked to outlaw torture, then Bush changed the definition of torture.

The degree of sickness is astonishing, the humiliation, sleep deprival, sexual degredation, electro shocks, keeping people in coffins, you name it. All done by the US and its allies. Some things are so atrocious, even the Bush pack outsourced it (even while calling Syria axis of evil material, renditions were going on, suspects delivered to a special hell in Damascus.) the connections to former US-sponsored torturers helped, too – contractors from Latin America, what Cheney called the Salvador option.

CIA agents who resigned over the horrors state that, no matter how repulsive it

might be, showing a suspect respect goes a long way. It’s idiotic to think by destroying their Korans their hearts and minds will be won.

Not to mention that committing vile acts damages the perpetrator, too. When you look into an abyss, the abyss will also look into you. The US simply has lost any credibility when

it comes to human rights. It belongs next to Syria and other Middle Eastern countries, after all they’re doing the dirty work for the US (as well as some Eastern European countries – you know, not the derided “Old Europe.”$

David Nickol Says:

January 19, 2010 at 9:20 am


Is torture evil only when the US and its allies do it? Or is it evil when Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China, North Korea, and Al-Qaeda do it?

I condemn the use of torture by the United States, but you make it sound like if you had a choice, you would rather deal with al-Qaeda justice than US justice.

Rodak Says:

January 19, 2010 at 10:41 am


That’s a cheap shot. Self-criticism does not in any way imply endorsement of the practices of any other group.

David Nickol Says:

January 19, 2010 at 11:47 am

That’s a cheap shot. Self-criticism does not in any way imply endorsement of the practices of any other group.


It is not “self-criticism” to be constantly harping about how horrible the United States is without acknowledging that it is in a battle with a ruthless, evil organization that is bent on killing Americans, whether they be military or civilian, wherever in the world they are. To the best of my knowledge, Gerald is not in the United States, and whatever his citizenship is, he is not speaking as an American criticizing his own country.

Teresa Says:

January 19, 2010 at 11:57 am

It is hypocritical to apply different standards to other countries around the world with regards to International laws and International laws opposition to torture and then apply a different standard to the United States and other leading countries (members of G-8) in the world. Instead of penalizing the U.S. while applying justifications for its use by other countries around the globe the laws must be consistent for all of the countries around the world.

Rodak Says:

January 19, 2010 at 12:13 pm

Okay, David–If you have knowledge that Gerald is not an American, so be it. I, nonetheless, agree with him. And I AM an American. What I said stands.

David Nickol Says:

January 19, 2010 at 12:38 pm


I have no problem whatsoever with your statement: “Self-criticism does not in any way imply endorsement of the practices of any other group.” I am not objecting to self-criticism. I am objecting to criticizing the United States alone. I think the United States went seriously astray under the Bush administration when it came to handling prisoners. However, I hope you would acknowledge that they were acting in response to a totally unjustifiable attack on civilians without any knowledge about what might be coming next. I agree that the United States should stick to its principles when fighting a ruthless enemy, but I do acknowledge that the United States really is fighting a ruthless enemy, and justifiably so. Extraordinary measures are justified, but not all extraordinary measures.

Let me put it this way. If the United States were to ask me to help fight al-Qaeda, and simultaneously al-Qaeda were to ask me to fight the United States, if I had to choose, there would be no question that I would side with the United States. I wouldn’t maintain some kind of moral equivalence between the United States and al-Qaeda.

Rodak Says:

January 19, 2010 at 1:05 pm

“I wouldn’t maintain some kind of moral equivalence between the United States and al-Qaeda.”

Oh, please. Climb down off it. The United States has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in fighting its never-ending series of wars in the past century. What were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if not state terrorism? Japan was already defeated; the targets were civilians. Certainly the second bomb, if not the first, was unnecessary.

Moral equivalence is as moral equivalence does.

My position is that we should be much, much better than we’ve been to-date. And I make no apology to you, or to anybody else, for holding that opinion.

Come to me when your hands are clean, and I’ll praise you to the skies.

Kyle R. Cupp Says:

January 19, 2010 at 1:21 pm

Here’s a disturbing investigative report by Scott Horton that three deaths at Guantanamo ruled suicides by the official narrative may not have been suicides at all. Evidence suggests our government may have tortured people to death and covered up the evidence.

Rodak Says:

January 19, 2010 at 1:29 pm

My best guess there is that they tortured one of the men to death, perhaps accidentally, and then just murdered the other two in cold blood to make certain that the story was never told. It stretches credibility to think that they simultaneously killed all three inadvertantly.

Kyle R. Cupp Says:

January 19, 2010 at 1:35 pm

It’s good to see the U.S. MSM is all over the story.

Teresa Says:

January 19, 2010 at 1:42 pm

It seems like Scott Horton’s report is supposition and not filled with any evidence to prove that these terrorists actually did not commit suicide. These terrorists were already on a hunger strike so the possibility that they actually did commit suicide and that the report is correct is very likely.

The MSM will pick up any story with an anti-american agenda to it. Today, the “green” movement is the old “red” movement. Communism is arising in our country and destroying our country because of the MSM, the Democrats and their ilk.

Rodak Says:

January 19, 2010 at 1:44 pm

It is, indeed.

David Nickol Says:

January 19, 2010 at 1:44 pm

My position is that we should be much, much better than we’ve been to-date.


I don’t disagree with that. But if I thought the United States taken as a whole was no better than al-Qaeda taken as a whole, I would move to another country. There is a difference between being deeply flawed and being dedicated to evil.

Gerald A. Naus Says:

January 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm

I live near San Francisco. Born in Austria, married to an American from Ohio. I’m a permanent resident. Of course, none of that is relevant. Your nativism is rather sad, what’s next, “go back to Russia, boy” ?

Other governments murdering and torturing doesn’t change a thing. There’s no medal for being better than North Korea. I observe frequently how people identify government with country – and thereby defend the former. It’s a godsend for criminals.

What makes the US system so despicable is the claim to moral superiority when in reality it’s just another aggressive empire.

US courts have been dismissing law suits re: torture, citing state secrets. The secret being torture, of course. How can a country bring “freedom and democracy” to anyone when it eroded its own long-cherished principles ? Torturing innocents, no legal recourse, no lawyer, no charge. that’s a banana republic.

In a just world, Bush and Cheney would be sitting in Den Haag on war crimes charges. To defend the American system because one happened to have been born here seems second nature, and I’m sure it’s common in all countries. The problem starts with identifying with a country to begin with.

Teresa Says:

January 19, 2010 at 2:10 pm

In my book, Bush and Cheney are my heroes, and if people had an understanding of what it takes to win a war, like in WWII and in previous wars, than Bush and Cheney would be revered as heroes around the world also, instead of the MSM compromising our national security by leaking classified documents and in doing so, aiding our enemies while allowing our enemy to cause grave harm to our brave men and women serving overseas and protecting our country from harm.

Rodak Says:

January 19, 2010 at 3:35 pm

“There is a difference in being deeply flawed and being dedicated to evil.”

If one is dedicated to one’s deep flaws, and those flaws are evil, then there is no such difference.

David Nickol Says:

January 19, 2010 at 3:36 pm

I live near San Francisco. Born in Austria, married to an American from Ohio. I’m a permanent resident.


I have two basic points regarding your messages. First, you seem to be saying that the United States is morally no better than al-Qaeda. Two, wherever you live, and whatever your citizenship, when you criticize the United States, it is not “self-criticism.” I am more than willing to criticize the United States. I think Bush and Cheney did serious damage to the country. But I don’t believe the United States and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent. I don’t think it is necessary to be an American to be of that opinion. The NATO countries and the United Nations don’t seem to see a moral equivalence between the United States and al-Qaeda.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I don’t take your criticism of the United States to be “self-criticism,” and it does seem to me you seem to delight in criticizing the United States in a way you don’t in criticizing other countries (if you do so at all).

I agree with you a lot of the time, and I enjoy the way you needle people when you disagree with them, except in this case your needling gets to me. But I promise not to try to have you booted out of the country as long as you oppose Proposition 8.

David Nickol Says:

January 19, 2010 at 3:52 pm

In my book, Bush and Cheney are my heroes . . . .


I take back anything I said that might be construed to support Kevin Rice and Teresa! Bush was a terrible president, and largely because of Cheney. I am willing to support coercive interrogation in theory, but virtually everything Bush-Cheney did in terms of handling prisoners was not merely wrong, but counterproductive.

There may someday be a ticking time bomb, but there has not been yet, and to use ticking time bomb tactics in the absence of a real ticking time bomb threat is totally unjustified.

Teresa Says:

January 19, 2010 at 4:15 pm

There is a huge difference in using flaws to both allay people’s fears and using them to fight terrorists(flaws as perceived by others) (some would consider what others call flaws in actuality necessities to win wars) and Al-Qaeda which is using its evil to kill innocent civilians.

Or do you believe that there is a moral equivalency between innocent civilians and terrorists?

The terrorists are using evil to kill innocent civilians, whereas the Bush administration was using all neccessary means to fight that evil. Besides, I consider people who are willing to sacrifice themselves and be suicide bombers as violating their own humanity and possibly entering a sub-human category that deserves any type of harsh interrogation methods as such as is necessary to provide for the United States’s national security interests. We have no obligation, as a nation, to consider our enemies so-called human rights or their feelings being hurt as human rights organizations would have you believe. This is about winning war and we cannot let human rights organizations dictate how we fight a war, or lose the war due to them pleasing terrorists.

Teresa Says:

January 19, 2010 at 4:28 pm


First, my husband thinks to at least to some degree differently than me regarding Bush and Cheney.

But, I believe in certain circumstances where there is a “ticking time bomb” scenario or where there is a limited amount of time to follow up on a threat and to stop that threat than I believe coercive techniques of all kinds are justified to use on the terrorist. As much as I am glad that the poll showed 58% of Americans wanting the underwear bomber to be water-boarded and people realizing the reality of fighting a war and the threat posed against our nation, I don’t think that the underwear bomber was of high-value, like KSM was, so I don’t see it as a necessity to water-board him.

But, I do think considering 9/11, which was an Act of War, and all the issues surrounding that event after that tragic event, that Bush and Cheney did the right thing and the necessary things to protect this country. Obama has weakened this country greatly and as you saw on Christmas Day, the terrorists are taking advantage of his weak presidency.

David Nickol Says:

January 19, 2010 at 4:33 pm

We have no obligation, as a nation, to consider our enemies so-called human rights or their feelings being hurt as human rights organizations would have you believe.


We followed the first three of the four Geneva Conventions in our fight against Hitler, and all four of them through the Cold War. Everyone has basic human rights, otherwise they wouldn’t be called “human rights.”

Extreme times call for extreme measures, but they don’t call for pitching human rights and American values out the window. If we go down that road, the United States really will become as bad as Gerald and Rodak claim it is.

David Nickol Says:

January 19, 2010 at 4:42 pm

Obama has weakened this country greatly and as you saw on Christmas Day, the terrorists are taking advantage of his weak presidency.


Al-Qaeda is reduced to putting lone individuals on airplanes with explosives (that don’t explode) in their underpants, and you say Obama has weakened the country?

I think it is playing right into the hands of al-Qaeda to make a big deal of the failed attack on Christmas. Terrorists want to intimidate, and if you are frightened by not having absolutely perfect security, then they have won.

Teresa Says:

January 19, 2010 at 4:48 pm


First, EIT’s and the actual torture committed prior to the Iraq war are on way different levels. Plus, The Japanese waterboarding was of a different method than the United States used. There is a huge difference in using certain unconventional methods in order to save innocent lives and the terrorists beheading a reporter or soldier, in fact targeting innocent civilians.

In WWII, there were NO reporters that could endanger the Nation’s national security interests. And, who knows exactly what techniques were used during that war that people don’t know of. But, now most of our hidden secrets that aided in our national security interests are shot to heck because of the MSM and their anti-american sentiments.

Teresa Says:

January 19, 2010 at 4:56 pm


Its not just that terrorist attack but also, the Ft. Hood terroist shooting. But, there are other signs of Obama’s weakness in office, like treating terrorists as civilian criminals. That is unconsionable. Never, in the history of this country has an enemy combatant that has been captured on a foreign battlefield been considered a mere common criminal.

I am not frightened. Just pointing out the weakened security. But, I am ambivolent on whether we should have body scanners or not.

National Defense does not go against our American values.

Joshua Brockway Says:

January 19, 2010 at 6:36 pm

“Never, in the history of this country has an enemy combatant.”

Where is the War…Congress has not declared war. Even if they did, what state would be the Enemy? We are talking about a stateless, loose coalition of people. How is Hasan an enemy. He has no links to funding by Al Qaeda. At most he is a domestic terrorist…akin to McVeigh.

So if these “enemy combatants” are not common criminals, does this mean their punishment is somehow worse? Is the Geneva Convention wrong for placing limits on what a state can do to a prisoner of war? Even the Nazi’s were tried as criminals, in a court with representation with expectations of rights.

No, National Defense does not go against our values…but the WAY we are defended can. (But apparently David thinks this is a cop out, which is a debate for a whole other thread).

Teresa Says:

January 19, 2010 at 7:45 pm


It is proven that Hasan had ties to al-Qaeda.

Since you state that there is no one particular country that is our enemy than the Geneva Convention does not apply. There needs to be a new convention that specificallly focuses on terrorists and the threat of terrorism. These terrorists do not use conventional warfare and do not wear uniforms and follow warfare rules so the United States must accomodate its strategy and do whatever is necessary to kill these evil terrorists, and thus should come a new Treaty focusing on terrorists or Muslim Jihadists.

The Trials at Nuremberg were Military Tribunals.

Like there would have been already if it hadn’t been for Eric Holder and his cronies.

So, Justice would have already been served if it wasn’t for Eric Holder and his comrades defending terrorists por bono.

Military court is far different than a civilian court.

Gerald A. Naus Says:

January 19, 2010 at 8:14 pm

“certain unconventional methods”

Teresa Orwell, I presume ?

There also is little difference between intentionally killing civilians or accepting the fact that my actions are going to kill them, day after day, without any good reason. Murder 1 vs Murder 2.

Joshua Brockway Says:

January 19, 2010 at 8:26 pm

So Al Qaeda funded and trained a lone gun man? Just because he sought out the group does not mean he was Al Qaeda.

I am not even going to touch your dismissal of the AG. I am sorry but the office deserves more respect than that.

Now, please explain to me how a military court is far different, and apparently better, than a civilian court.

David Nickol Says:

January 19, 2010 at 8:27 pm

Military court is far different than a civilian court.

Military justice is to justice as military music is to music.

Rodak Says:

January 19, 2010 at 8:37 pm

“…accepting the fact that my actions are going to kill them…”

There it is; there is the crux at which we make an idol of our “flaws.”

Joshua Brockway Says:

January 19, 2010 at 9:10 pm

“Military justice is to justice as military music is to music.”

Does that mean it needs a good Sousaphone?

Teresa Says:

January 19, 2010 at 9:18 pm

Am I your high school social studies teacher?

And, Yes, justice would have been served to terrorists in Gitmo, if it wasn’t for AG Holder and his comrades aiding the terrorists by donating many, many hours pro bono.

Joshua Brockway Says:

January 20, 2010 at 12:02 am

“Am I your high school social studies teacher?”

Apparently your arrogance has gotten in the way of clear expression and definition of your terms.

I don’t need to engage in a discussion with someone who can’t respect me long enough to actually answer my question.

Any one else care to talk?

samrocha Says:

January 20, 2010 at 12:17 am

I have come to mediate this dispute and disclose my up-to-now hidden identity: I AM YOUR HIGH SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHER!

There you have it. Settled.

Joshua Brockway Says:

January 20, 2010 at 12:34 am

Ah, its been so long!

Now about that C…

Kyle R. Cupp Says:

January 20, 2010 at 8:27 am

Now that the matter is settled, let’s return to debating the questions of coercion and torture. Not that I hold out hope for settling those, but the conversation has been interesting, to say the least.
I must say that I had a little fun with my last comment regardless of whether it is posted or not.  I said, "Liberal intelligenstia has ruined people's intellect."
So if anyone wants to join in on the discuusion have fun!! Here is the link to the post.