South Bend is heating up over the controversy surrounding Obama and the local bishop...Read the post

2009 College Grads: We're the Lucky Ones

Why there is hope for the graduating Class of 2009, and how they can find work in a recession...Read the post

Beer in Vending Machines -- What Drinking Age?

U.S. policies on drinking age seem restrictive when examining the rest of the world...Read the post

How The Press Can Remain Relevant

Is it any surprise that Obama has employed a strategy to cordon journalists that is similar to previous administrations?...Read the post

Be Afraid, Cheney Warns. Be Very Afraid.

Just when you thought the Bush-era warnings of Armageddon around the corner were over, Cheney strikes again...Read the post

Obama: You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...

Obama threw down his stick, spat on the floor and growled in the face of cameras -- metaphorically... Read the post

Obama to GOP: 'I Won, I'm The President'

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told GOP leaders...Read the post

Palin Seeks $11M Book Deal, but Can She Read?

One can only imagine what Republican rising star Sarah Palin could possibly write about in her memoirs...Read the post

boston university

politics

Why Do Americans Oppose the Release of Information?

Matt Negrin

Posted: Apr 26th 2009 5:53PM

Filed under: Politics, Boston University, Media

Matt Negin is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

In a new Washington Post poll, most Americans approve of Barack Obama's performance during his first 100 days in office.

But although the Post led its Sunday story with that finding, another response in the survey about the recently released torture memos is considerably more newsworthy. Apparently, 44 percent of the public disapproves of Obama's decision to release secret documents from the Bush administration detailing the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Fifty-three percent approved.

That key question also revealed a deep partisan divide, with three-quarters of Democrats backing the disclosure of the memos and just as many Republicans opposing the hotly debated move.

Why does access to more information fall along a partisan split? I was just as perplexed last year when I covered the Roger Clemens steroids-in-baseball hearing on Capitol Hill, and Democrats on the government reform committee harshly interrogated The Rocket while their Republican counterparts defended him. (I still can't figure out why, and Clemens has not been recorded by the FEC for any GOP campaign donations.)

But when did the issue of releasing information -- albeit from the secretive Bush administration about the sensitive issue of torture -- begin to irk conservatives? Shouldn't the availability of information be heralded by all, whether it be documents implicating a Democratic governor of New York in a prostitution ring or sexual instant messages between a Republican congressman from Florida and his congressional pages?

Whether the new information about counter-terrorist interrogations during Bush's term justifies the use of waterboarding or exposes a lack of understanding about torture methods, the very fact that the public can debate the use of torture with more understanding is valuable. Public debate without appropriate information is just yelling or pandering (or cable-news filler).

For example, one nugget from the torture memos released April 16 includes information (some in a footnote) about how simulated drowning, or "waterboarding," was used 266 times on two suspects. This news raised questions of not only waterboarding's effectiveness, but its frequent use. Advocates and critics of waterboarding can now understand better the controversial topic they're debating.

Yet even after that news has been reported, 44 percent of the public (mostly Republican but not all) still think it was a bad idea for Obama to make those documents available to be read by anyone, according to the Post poll. The question was not a matter of defending or criticizing the use of torture; it was, "Obama has ordered the release of previously secret records of Bush administration policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Do you support or oppose Obama's decision to release these records?" Out of everyone asked, 32 percent "strongly oppose" the president's move, and another 12 percent "somewhat oppose" it.

One of the arguments against the memos' release is that potential suspects now have a wider view into counter-terrorist methods. (Still, fake drowning is fake drowning, whether you know it's coming or not.) And then there's the idea that because terrorists are potentially very dangerous, maybe the public doesn't want to know what it takes to get information that could help authorities prevent an attack.

These points appear to be valid, but certainly not partisan; nobody on Capitol Hill wants to make it easier for terrorists to strike. What they should want is the most information available to adequately serve public discourse.

Recent Comments »
Page 4/6
Post Your Comments Below

Previous 20 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments

Gregory Dittmer

9:01PM 9:01PM Apr 28th 2009

anniemott

10:46PM 10:46PM Apr 27th 2009

How about Obama release his college records......

######################################################

WHY?! What possible reason would you have for wanting to see Obama's college records?

Rating : 2 stars Report!

Gregory Dittmer

6:47AM 6:47AM Apr 28th 2009

For those that want to define torture in THEIR terms rather than the entire International Community, we have ratified the UN Convention Against Torture. There are a few points where even the so-called "Patriot Act" has illegal provisions according to this treaty.

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN
OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT
The States Parties to this Convention, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms, Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975, Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world, Have agreed as follows:
Part I
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to
prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal
political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Although there is a lot more to this, just the very beginning is enough to PROVE Bush43 Adminstration crimes against humanity! Check out the rest if you want to know just how many laws Bush43 has broken. If ANY OTHER persons are found to have violated this agreement, they should be fully investigated and prosecuted.

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

Angiebaby

8:26AM 8:26AM Apr 28th 2009

Perhaps issue is releasing only information about types of torture and who approved, Grasshopper. Why not release, too, crises discovered and averted, and lives saved by information from combatants who were forced to talk? And not just lives saved stateside, but around world, too.

Partial information is a dangerous thing, and always political dynamite. Think on this, Grasshopper.

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

Greg

9:38AM 9:38AM Apr 28th 2009

lol...because if we don't, they will think us wimpy? You've got to be kidding or you are a teenage boy. All legitimate evidence proves that any sort of torture NEVER works. Never. Even if it did. The small amount of info you would receive, even if it did save a couple of lives, would exponicially cause America more lives by the hate and bad PR that it would cause. We are America, We do not torture.........Must be a democrap to say this. Have you tried to torture someone??? If not then how can you say this method does not work? I have heard of a few instances that it has twarted terrorist attacks on the U.S.!!! As for the guy who masterminded the WTC attacks, I personally feel splashing some water on this mass murderers face is NOTHING!!! We do not beat theses prisoners who live to just kill americans, we deprive them of sleep and throw water on them, good grief people. This man and his followers want to chop your head off, for the simple fact that you are american. You have never personally done anything to these people, but yet they want YOU and YOUR CHILDREN dead!!! Do you people understand that??? They want to kill all of us but yet we do not want them to get a little water on thier face. I will never understand that way of thinking. Well since he killed over 3,000 americans let's just send him on his way, to do it again. If you retards were running congress during WW2 would you have let Hitler run free, I personally belive you would. Wake up dumbasses, those gitmo detainees want to kill your kids, and if we just talk to them all buddy buddy and release them they will kill americans AGAIN!!! From what you are saying is you don't care how many amercans they kill, so why not have them stay in your guest room, right next to your kids room. Then you can cook him breakfest and be buddies with the very people that want everyone in this country dead!!!

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

mahalapril

12:17PM 12:17PM Apr 28th 2009

Total islamic terrorists waterboarded during the 9/11 WTC incident - 3 [alive] islamic terrorist masterminds of 9/11. Total American innocent civilians tortured and massacred on 9/11 - 3,000 Americans [all died horrific deaths] - RATIO 3-3,000

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

SpinEqualsLies

12:05PM 12:05PM Apr 28th 2009

The government only wants to release information about what they want to release information about. Most of the time they want to release it to slam collegues, former or present. To try and kick up a little dust over an administration that is no longer even in office. The truth is no matter who is in office, they all have a personal agenda. It's the nature of the job no matter what side a person leans toward.

People ask the government for information all the time and don't get it. What about those people who ask for information so trivial and ridiculous as the truth about UFOs? Those people still dig at Washington and still get a door shut in their face. Or thirty different stories. You'd think Washington would throw those poor people a bone if for no other reason than to give them something to keep busy with. Give them the documents and be done with it. Think of all the time and effort Washington could save if they just handed those people the uncensored papers. Those people would have what they wanted and could take off to the desert and wrap their heads in tin foil or whatever, then Washington wouldn't have to deal with them again.

It's a lame example, but it's the same for other issues as well. It's not that Americans don't want the truth. They're just aware of the information double standard. They're so used to being lied to and kept in the dark about the things they DO care about that they've become complacent.

Americans no longer look up when politicians try dangling a piece of meat before their faces, becaue they can see through the political BS to get to the reason why you want to reveal the mess in the first place.

Epic fail, Washington!

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

mahalapril

10:25AM 10:25AM Apr 29th 2009

DAN LYNCH- HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE THEN THE TORTURE/HORRIFIC DEATHS AND MASSACRE OF THE 3,000 AMERICANS ON 9/11. THE BEHEADING OF DANIEL PEARL. THE TORTURE AND BEHEADING OF THE AMERICAN INNOCENT CIVILIANS AND US TROOPS IN IRAQ. BUSH,THE IRAQ WAR AND THE WATERBOARDING DID NOT RECRUIT MORE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. THE ISLAMIC FANATICS HAVE BEEN ABLE AND GOOD AT RECRUITING ISLAMIC FANATICS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF ISLAM BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN SLAUGHTERING AND BEHEADING INFIDELS FOR A THOUSAND YEARS ALREADY. WE DIDN'T HAVE GITMO,ABU-GHRAIB,BUSH,WATERBOARDING,THE IRAQ WAR A THOUSAND YEARS AGO BUT THEY ALREADY STARTED IT THEN.IT MEANS THAT THE ISLAMIC FANATIC'S ONLY PURPOSE IS TO CONVERT THE WHOLE WORLD TO ISLAM OR DIE AS A MARTYR. TRYING TO MAKE FRIENDS WITH THESE FANATICS IS PERCIEVED AS A MILITARY WEAKNESS AND WILL ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE ATTACKS ON THE US HOMELAND WHICH BILL CLINTON COULD HAVE PREVENTED 9/11 IF HE WAS A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AND NOT A WOMANIZER.

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

Georgia

2:14PM 2:14PM Apr 28th 2009

Why do we oppose having documents released? Maybe because we want to be kept safe from terroist........suppose???????? That's a really dumb question. Don't tell me it's because Obama is so upright! We know who he pals around with, a bunch of criminals and the Illinois people in politics that are the most corrupt. He's doing this thinking it will add to his popularity. Well from my vantage point, it's doing just the opposite. It certainly isn't helping our security.

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

Chap

3:40PM 3:40PM Apr 28th 2009

Read this and decide. Would you rather be questioned by the Clinton or Bush administration? It looks like Bush dialed back the torture. Interested in the truth or just Bush's head?

CIA-Backed Team Used Brutal Means To Break Up Terrorist Cell in Albania
By ANDREW HIGGINS and CHRISTOPHER COOPER
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
TIRANA, Albania -- Ahmed Osman Saleh stepped off a minibus here in the Albanian capital in July 1998 and caught what would be his last glimpse of daylight for three days. As he paid the driver, Albanian security agents slipped a white cloth bag over Mr. Saleh's head, bound his limbs with plastic shackles and tossed him into the rear of a hatchback vehicle.
Supervising the operation from a nearby car were agents from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Saleh's Albanian captors sped over rutted roads to an abandoned air base 35 miles north of Tirana. There, recalled an Albanian security agent who participated, guards dumped the bearded self-confessed terrorist on the floor of a windowless bathroom.
After two days of interrogation by CIA agents and sporadic beatings by Albanian guards, Mr. Saleh was put aboard a CIA-chartered plane and flown to Cairo, according to the Albanian agent and a confession Egyptian police elicited from Mr. Saleh in September 1998. "I remained blindfolded until I got off the plane," Mr. Saleh said in the confession, a document written in Arabic longhand that he signed at the bottom.
There were more beatings and torture at the hands of Egyptian authorities. And 18 months after he was grabbed outside the Garden of Games, a Tirana childrens' park, Mr. Saleh was hanged in an Egyptian prison yard.
By the Script
His capture was one of five scripted and overseen by American agents as part of a covert 1998 operation to deport members of the Egyptian Jihad organization to Cairo from the Balkans. At the time, Egyptian Jihad was merging with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. U.S. authorities considered the Tirana cell among the most dangerous terror outfits in Europe. The CIA has refused to acknowledge the 1998 operation. But privately, U.S. officials have described it as one of the most successful counterterrorism
efforts in the annals of the intelligence agency....
About a dozen U.S. agents arrived in Albania to plan the arrests, according to their Albanian counterparts. CIA and SHIK operatives spent three months devising the operation, often meeting in a conference room next to Mr. Klosi's office.
On June 25, 1998, the Egyptian government issued a prearranged arrest warrant for Mr. Attiya, the forger, and demanded his deportation. Most such requests to Western countries had been ignored in the past, said Hisham Saraya, Egypt's attorney general at the time. This one was not.
That day, while driving in his 1986 Audi in Tirana, Mr. Attiya found himself being trailed by an Albanian police car and another vehicle, he later recalled in his confession. He was stopped and arrested. The same day, Albanian security officers raided his home and found more than 50 plates and stamps used to produce fake visas and other bogus documents, according to court records from his 1999 trial.
Several days later, he was taken, handcuffed and blindfolded, to the abandoned air base, north of Tirana. "There, a private plane was waiting for me," he said in his confession. Once in Cairo, he was blindfolded again and driven to Egypt's state security offices on July 2, 1998. "Since then, the interrogations have not stopped," he said.
Mr. Attiya later told his lawyer, Hafez Abu-Saada, that while being questioned, he was subjected to electrical shocks to his genitals, suspended by his limbs, dragged on his face, and made to stand for hours in a cell, with filthy water up to his knees. Mr. Abu-Saada, who represented all five members of the Tirana cell, subsequently recorded their complaints in a published report.
Also deported from Tirana was Mr. Naggar. He was nabbed in July 1998 by SHIK on a road outside of town. He, too, was blindfolded and spirited home on a CIA plane. In complaints in his confession and to his defense lawyer, Mr. Abu-Saada, Mr. Naggar said his Egyptian interrogators regularly applied electrical shocks to his nipples and penis.
Mr. Naggar's brother, Mohamed, said in an interview that he and his relatives also were -- and continue to be -- harassed and tortured by Egyptian police. He said he had suffered broken ribs and fractured cheekbones. "They changed my features," Mohamed Naggar said, touching his face.
About two weeks after Messrs. Attiya and Naggar were deported to Egypt, Albanian security agents took Mr. Tita, the dues-collector, from his Tirana apartment. They covered his head and put him on a plane. "After I was arrested, [Egyptian interrogators] hung me from my wrists and applied electricity to parts of my feet and back," he said in his confession.

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

Gregory Dittmer

8:37PM 8:37PM Apr 28th 2009

COWBOY

4:18PM 4:18PM Apr 28th 2009

OBAMA, I DON'T THINK SO HE CAN'T EVEN BE HONEST AND REVEAL HIS SEALED BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND EDUCATIONAL DEMOCRATIC.
I AM NOT TRYING TO BEAT A DIED HORSE BUT THESE ARE FACTS AND SHOULD BE TAKEN AS SERIOUSLY AS THE INFORMATION THAT WOULD NOT MAKE HIM QUALIFIED, EXPERIENCED OR HONEST ENOUGH TO BE OUR PRESIDENT AND "COMMONER AND CHIEF!"

####################################################

Maybe you aren't trying to beat a dead horse because THIS horse is SO dead it has to be dug from the grave before you can beat it!

Just what makes you think it is a "fact" Obama has not released his proper birth certificate?! What kind of evidence do you have that the birth certificate posted online is fake? And just what would be the purpose of going through Obama's school records?

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

Delilah

11:08AM 11:08AM May 3rd 2009

The reason we believe that he has not released his real BC is because in the 60's they did not have laser print also they would nt have put caucasian for white and they certainly would not have put African they would have put negro. I look into census reports all the time and African is not a color, you know there are white Africans too don't you?

Rating : 2 stars Report!

Delilah

11:14AM 11:14AM May 3rd 2009

because it has caucasian not white and it has African not negro which they would have put in the 60's. There are white Africans also you know. Sorry if this showed up twice but it wasn't showing.

Rating : 2 stars Report!

Gregory Dittmer

8:58PM 8:58PM Apr 28th 2009

mahalapril

4:18PM 4:18PM Apr 28th 2009

HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE THEN... THE TORTURE AND BEHEADING OF THE AMERICAN INNOCENT CIVILIANS AND US TROOPS IN IRAQ.
TRYING TO MAKE FRIENDS WITH THESE FANATICS IS PERCIEVED AS A MILITARY WEAKNESS AND WILL ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE ATTACKS ON THE US HOMELAND WHICH BILL CLINTON COULD HAVE PREVENTED 9/11 IF HE WAS A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AND NOT A WOMANIZER.

#####################################################

Those so-called "innocent civilians" we have in Iraq are actually mercenaries, NOT civilians. Whether driving a truck or providing body guard services, these people are doing a job that used to be done by the military. They provide a direct service to the military and enable the military to fight even though they do not wear a uniform. Basically, this amounts to what WE have labeled "enemy combatants" and following OUR example, they have NO RIGHTS under ANY international treaties!
Remember WE are the ones that set the standard, WE are the ones that made the claim that those not wearing a uniform have no rights. If we can do that, then stop whining about what has happened to our "civilian contractors."

Bill Clinton was tracking Osama bin Laden and he gave ample warning to the Bush43 administration about him. The Bush43 administration chose to totally ignore a report given to them titled Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States. The adminstration had that report by early August, but Bush43 decided to go on vacation rather than take the report seriously.

Bill Clinton being a womanizer had nothing to do with 9/11! It was Ken Starr and the Republicans that kept distracting Clinton with their vandetta. EVERY TIME Clinton did do something to fight terrorists, the Republicans would say he is just doing that to distract them from persecuting him. NO matter WHAT Clinton did, he was condemned. He was condemned when he took action and then condemned when he did not take action.

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

Tink

9:30PM 9:30PM Apr 28th 2009

The reason I oppose the release of information is because I am sick and tired of The Blame Game. When presented with the same situation this administration would do exactly the same thing. This "holier-than-thou" attitude coming from the Obama camp is disgusting. If the truth were to be told- the whole truth- Reid, Pelosi, Colin Powell (the traitor),and Hilary Clinton would also have to be held accountable. It is not in their political best interest to open this can of worms.

All's Fair in Love and War.

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

escort6768

11:34PM 11:34PM Apr 28th 2009

I am all for a full release of all information. That includes all members of Congress that were briefed on interrogation methods. Not a release that excludes certain individuals because of their party.

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

malcom

1:59AM 1:59AM Apr 29th 2009

Maybe they don't want the information release, because they don't give a rats ass if terrorists were tortured or not after 9/11 !!!!!! I know I don't. These people who want some kind of justice for terrorists that may have been tortured makes me sick. Where is the justice for the Americans who were killed on 9/11 and for the families and friends who were left behind???????

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

Cecil Jones

8:01AM 8:01AM Apr 29th 2009

I decided to revisit this article because my Clinton/Lewinsky comments could be spun in a direction that I didn't intend to offer. We oppose the release of information because we all fall short of perfection, however, we are not all public officials pretending to be worthy of the public trust. If that trust is violated, then there must be some level of accountability. Our politics have demanded loyalty in order to play. If one was disloyal to the Clintons or the Bushes then we were shut out of the process. The best and brightest have been denied access to the halls of justice and power. America has suffered for this discrimination and political payback. Holding Clinton accountable was necessary to protect and defend the Constitution. We didn't do it and President Bush violated the Constitution too. Now we have a "Tit for Tat?" Well, not exactly...we have a sexual favor exchanged for an endless war and the call for change in our politics. President Obama has served 100 days and it seems that the Bush and Clinton agenda are right on schedule? We don't give bailouts for failure and a war is endless until it ends. Releasing the information gives "We the People" back it's power that the Constitution intended for us to have. What politician wants us to have that power? What media outlet wants to threaten a politician that pays their bills so well? I think we call this a conspiracy, but who investiges themselves or turns down easy money? It's only a crime if you get caught. Denial works and it always will until the whole truth is exposed. Fat chance right?

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

Linn

10:30AM 10:30AM Apr 29th 2009

The ONLY MISTAKE MADE WAS THEY DIDNT DROWN THE S>O>B

Rating : 2.5 stars Reply to this commentReport!

mahalapril

11:05AM 11:05AM Apr 29th 2009

Gregory Dittmer- I was talking about the 5 really innocent civilians including Berg,an englishman and 3 others who were beheaded and shown on video.The mercenaries you are talking about are the blackwater contractors.They are the same as the security personnels of our gov't officials,the wealthy,the armored bank vehicles guards and they are not mercenaries. They don't kill people intentionally. They only protect people or supplies on their convoys.If you call the blackwater contractors mercenaries how would you label the thousands of multinational islamic fanatics who would behead,indiscriminately murder thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians by car or suicide bombings in Iraq. Are not they the real mercenaries.These islamic fanatics were wiped out by our US troops in Iraq. Bin Ladin from Saudi Arabia and islamic terrorist from from all over the world including Chechnya all went to Afghanistan to fight the Russian infidels.Regarding giving ample warning to Bush , would that be enough to invade Afghanistan. Remember that they blamed Bush for faulty intelligence about WMDs in Iraq which Saddam actually started the Iraq war by refusing the search of WMDS. Why would Clinton wait for Bush to attack Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda after the loss of lives of hundreds of Americans before 9/11. Remember 1- The WTC garage bombing by Al-Qaeda in 1993, 2-The USS Cole bombing by Al-Qaeda in Yemen killing 17 US sailors, 3- the Khobar Tower US military housing complex bombing in Saudi Arabia. Why would Clinton not invade Afghanistan already to get Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda after an act of war by Al-Qaeda by bombing 2 US embassies in Africa which killed hundreds. Is Clinton too coward to start a war like all WEAK DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS EVEN IF IT WAS TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION,OUR PEOPLE AND OUR HOMELAND?

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

Gregory Dittmer

11:58PM 11:58PM Apr 29th 2009

*****"I was talking about the 5 really innocent civilians including Berg,an englishman and 3 others who were beheaded... The mercenaries you are talking about are the blackwater contractors... They don't kill people intentionally. They only protect people or supplies on their convoys.If you call the blackwater contractors mercenaries how would you label the thousands of multinational islamic fanatics who would behead,indiscriminately murder thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians by car or suicide bombings in Iraq. Are not they the real mercenaries."*****

Apparently you simply do not understand the definition of "mercenary" and how it applies in this issue. The following is provided to clarify the definition...

mercenary !mur-s/un-+er-E
Pronunciation: \ ˈmər-sə-ˌner-ē, -ne-rē \
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mer·ce·nar·ies,
Results: one that serves merely for wages especially a soldier hired into foreign service

In other words, virtually all of the "contractors" are mercenaries in that they are foreigners which have come to the war seeking profits. Whether they carry weapons or just transport items required to continue the war, they are replacing work typically done by our military.

*****"The mercenaries you are talking about are the blackwater contractors... They don't kill people intentionally. They only protect people or supplies on their convoys.If you call the blackwater contractors mercenaries how would you label the thousands of multinational islamic fanatics who would behead,indiscriminately murder thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians"*****

"Blackwater" is just the name of the private paramilitary company, it does not change the fact that they come from a foreign nation carrying weapons to do what should be done by the US military. Blackwater, as a paramilitary outfit, performs tasks typically done by the regular military. They are just hired guns, nothing more, nothing less.
They DO "intentionally" "kill" people that attack their convoys or personnel they protect just like any military personnel would do.
"The thousands of multinational islamic fanatics" would also be considered mercenaries if they are PAID to come into the country and fight as a soldier would do. The Iraqis themselves are generally the ones doing most of the suicide bombings and some are volunteers from other nations that have come to fight for the Iraqi people.

*****"Bin Ladin from Saudi Arabia and islamic terrorist from from all over the world including Chechnya all went to Afghanistan to fight the Russian infidels."*****

When Russia was occupying Afghanistan, the United States Government was actually helping bin Laden and the Afghan people! Back then bin Laden was a "Freedom Fighter" and not considered a terrorist by this nation.

*****"Regarding giving ample warning to Bush , would that be enough to invade Afghanistan."*****

There would have been no need to invade Afghanistan had Bush43 been heedful of the warning given him! There was adequate information throughout the FBI, NSA, CIA. etc. that something big was being planned. Furthermore, the stated reasoning for invading Afghanistan has yet to be accomplished 8 years later! Rather than stick to the purpose of catching or killing Osama bin Laden and stopping al Qeada, Bush43 took his eye off the target and instead invaded Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 9/11 OR bin Laden!

*****"Remember that they blamed Bush for faulty intelligence about WMDs in Iraq which Saddam actually started the Iraq war by refusing the search of WMDS."*****

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with starting a war with us! There has been an alarming amount of evidence which points to Bush/Cheney hand picking JUST the "facts" they wanted to disclose in order to justify a "pre-emptive" invasion. The International inspectors were in Iraq and doing their job, had Bush simply waited for them to finish their inspections, there would have been no reason to invade. Further, had Bush not CHOSEN to invade Iraq, just maybe we could have caught bin Laden!

*****" Why would Clinton wait for Bush to attack Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda after the loss of lives of hundreds of Americans before 9/11. Remember 1- The WTC garage bombing by Al-Qaeda in 1993, 2-The USS Cole bombing by Al-Qaeda in Yemen killing 17 US sailors, 3- the Khobar Tower US military housing complex bombing in Saudi Arabia. Why would Clinton not invade Afghanistan already to get Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda after an act of war by Al-Qaeda by bombing 2 US embassies in Africa which killed hundreds."*****

The fact of the matter is that the first WTC attack happened just ONE MONTH after Clinton's inauguration and that at least 6 people were caught, tried and are serving prison sentences. If you want to blame Clinton for 9/11 because "it was planned on his watch," then you must also blame Bush41 for the first attack since it was obviously planned during his term!
Clinton had been watching and waiting for bin Laden to show so he could take him out. He had a sub stationed off the coast of Pakistan waiting for bin Laden so they could take him out with a cruise missile. The problem is the missile would need to pass through Pakistan air space. In order to prevent a conflict with Pakistan, they were notified before a missile would launch. Several missiles were fired, but bin Laden had a helper in the Pakistan government that gave him warning.

Within the first weeks of the new Bush43 administration, Bush called off the sub watching for bin Laden. Ashcroft, the attorney general, thought fighting drugs and sex was more important than terrorism threats. Ashcroft was so uptight about sex he had a sheet placed over the bare breast on a statue!