Post by mdub on May 15, 2009 17:07:05 GMT -6
I generally agree with Pat ahd have read most of his articles. But this one is simply ridiculous in my view.
www.vdare.com/buchanan/090515_crocodile.htm
He argues that Obama is right to not release photos of tortured "terrorists". Waterboarding is torure. Torture is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution, which is supposed to guarantee decent treatment to all people, not just US cicizens. Not only should these photots be released, but the Obama Administration should go after everyone that ordered torture or performed it. The cover-up will simply create more hatred of America in the Islamic world, as well as everywhere else.
I find it apalling that a decent man like Buchanan can support torture.
He isn't even consistent in his views. Buchanan supports liberating Grenada back in the 80s, and helping the Contras overthrow the communist Sandinistas. But in previous articles, he beleives the US was right to stay out, when the Soviets rolled their tanks into Chechioslovakia and Hungary. Why is Grenada worth liberating, but not Eastern Europe?
He defends the war criminal Cheney for ordering torture:
"He believes, that, after 9-11, he, as a custodian of the national security, had a duty to go the limit to get information from terrorists to prevent another or worse atrocity.
He admits to having approved the authorization of "enhanced interrogation techniques," including waterboarding. He believes they yielded indispensable information about our enemies that helped to prevent another attack for seven and a half years. He does not believe that they were illegal, or constituted torture.
He is a true believer, full of conviction and certitude, whose unstated retort to those demanding he be prosecuted for war crimes is the one he gave the distinguished senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy."
First, how does Buchanan know the people we were torturing were terrorists? Torture someone long enough, and he will eventually tell you whatever you want to hear.
Second, how does Pat know the information we got prevented any attacks? Do we have hard evidence of a plot that was foiled? Bush's claims of terrorsits trying to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel to flood Manhattan, bomb the Sears tower, and blow up a skyscraper in Los Angeles were all lies. They were designed to keep the public scared, so that it could be influenced more easily.
And waterboarding is illegal and does constitute torture, regardless of what Cheney believes.
And Cheney has no convictions, only a hidden, evil agenda. The prisoner, Muhammed Khudayr al-Dulaymi, was tortured until he said that Saddam had links to 9-11. This gave Bush and Cheney justification to invade Iraq.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5325680/Dick-Cheney-suggested-waterboarding-Iraqi-prisoner.html
Pat goes on:
"There is a high probability, if not a near certainty, that, one day, al-Qaida is going to conduct some spectacular attack on this country or its allies, and Americans will say, "This didn't happen when people like Cheney were running the show.""
Is Pat crazy? Didn't 9-11 happen on Bush's and Cheney's watch?
And I don't believe anything the government says about 9-11 anyway. It's story can be easily disproven by anyone who understands physics and engineering. That's why the goverment has silenced any discussion of the topic.
The only reason Obama is defending the previous administration is because he's the same noecon as they are.
www.vdare.com/buchanan/090515_crocodile.htm
He argues that Obama is right to not release photos of tortured "terrorists". Waterboarding is torure. Torture is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution, which is supposed to guarantee decent treatment to all people, not just US cicizens. Not only should these photots be released, but the Obama Administration should go after everyone that ordered torture or performed it. The cover-up will simply create more hatred of America in the Islamic world, as well as everywhere else.
I find it apalling that a decent man like Buchanan can support torture.
He isn't even consistent in his views. Buchanan supports liberating Grenada back in the 80s, and helping the Contras overthrow the communist Sandinistas. But in previous articles, he beleives the US was right to stay out, when the Soviets rolled their tanks into Chechioslovakia and Hungary. Why is Grenada worth liberating, but not Eastern Europe?
He defends the war criminal Cheney for ordering torture:
"He believes, that, after 9-11, he, as a custodian of the national security, had a duty to go the limit to get information from terrorists to prevent another or worse atrocity.
He admits to having approved the authorization of "enhanced interrogation techniques," including waterboarding. He believes they yielded indispensable information about our enemies that helped to prevent another attack for seven and a half years. He does not believe that they were illegal, or constituted torture.
He is a true believer, full of conviction and certitude, whose unstated retort to those demanding he be prosecuted for war crimes is the one he gave the distinguished senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy."
First, how does Buchanan know the people we were torturing were terrorists? Torture someone long enough, and he will eventually tell you whatever you want to hear.
Second, how does Pat know the information we got prevented any attacks? Do we have hard evidence of a plot that was foiled? Bush's claims of terrorsits trying to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel to flood Manhattan, bomb the Sears tower, and blow up a skyscraper in Los Angeles were all lies. They were designed to keep the public scared, so that it could be influenced more easily.
And waterboarding is illegal and does constitute torture, regardless of what Cheney believes.
And Cheney has no convictions, only a hidden, evil agenda. The prisoner, Muhammed Khudayr al-Dulaymi, was tortured until he said that Saddam had links to 9-11. This gave Bush and Cheney justification to invade Iraq.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5325680/Dick-Cheney-suggested-waterboarding-Iraqi-prisoner.html
Pat goes on:
"There is a high probability, if not a near certainty, that, one day, al-Qaida is going to conduct some spectacular attack on this country or its allies, and Americans will say, "This didn't happen when people like Cheney were running the show.""
Is Pat crazy? Didn't 9-11 happen on Bush's and Cheney's watch?
And I don't believe anything the government says about 9-11 anyway. It's story can be easily disproven by anyone who understands physics and engineering. That's why the goverment has silenced any discussion of the topic.
The only reason Obama is defending the previous administration is because he's the same noecon as they are.