Fear is irrelevant unless it is being used as a tool :hmmm:

No by far the bigest motivator is votes and apeasment to constituants.

This is an odd mischaraterization used quite frequently by politicians in order to advocate themselves as "hopeful" and "optimistic".

Almost ALL policy decisions are based upon fear.

Why change something if you're not afraid of what will happen if you don't?

Heh, this entire stimulous package is being passed based upon the premise of the fear of what would happen if we don't do anything...

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is basing this on political considerations. And the former commander of the USS Cole has called him on it. He's right, and it will not ensure the security of the American people. The people in Gitmo weren't picked up at Disneyland. Most of them were holding AK's in the back-areas of Afghanistan hanging out with Taliban. Gitmo is where they belong for the duration of the conflict.

Gitmo as a policy was not made out of fear, it was a policy made on the common sense handling of enemy combatants.

Fear is a natural response to perceived threats, that's true. But there is fear and then there is FEAR.

fear makes you put on a seatbelt, hold your kid's hand in traffic, know how to swim, spend $$$$ in an attempt to fix your economy.....

FEAR makes you willing give away your rights(and your neighbor's), imprison people for life with no evidence, use torture, betray the very ideals your country supposedly stood for, do things your great, great, great, grandchildren will be puzzeled and horrified by....

If as Americans, by being Americans, it means we have to fight the war on terror with one arm and both legs tied behind our backs, so be it. Better that, than to do things that make people think we forgot who we are.

Gitmo is one of those things....

What does the US even need the Guantanamo for, they can just send the (mostly innocent) people they captured to whatever foreign country that does their torturing for them. Outsourcing, word of the day.

Putting a word in bold italics doesn't change its premise. Sure, there are different levels of fear. But even terrorism without Gitmo doesn't leave me here, shaken, anymore than an economic collapse does. In fact, the economy directly impacts far more people than terrorism.

Gitmo isn't any more fear-driven than anything else we do.This is another liberal mischaracterization. What rights have been given away (please cite specifics)?

I'm no more limited in what I do than I was in 1999. Are you and, if so, how?Yet another blanket, broad, and completely incorrect statement liberals design to muddy the issue.

No one has been imprisoned for life, for one thing. In fact, far too many have been released.

Secondly, just because there isn't transparency (meaning, YOU can't see the evidence), doesn't mean that said proof does not exist.

It's odd how people how so much faith in our over-crowded, ideological judiciary but have no faith whatsoever in our comparatively efficient military.Why does it bother people that we'd torture someone for information useful in stopping their overall goal of destroying us?

This isn't fear (or fear) ... this is pragmatic. Torture a few guys who hate us to potentially save 1000s of our own people.

How are our rights in any way compromised by this? Furthermore, doesn't the Constitution SPECIFICALLY allow for the providing "for the common defense"? In fact, Article 1 Section 9 of our Constitution (the document that gives us these rights) provides for the suspension of Habeas Corpus for public safety.Again, this is a typical grand statement low on substance.

There's a document explaining what your country stands for - it's called the Constitution and applies to citizens of the United States. I'd be interested in hearing some actual cases of US citizens losing any rights...The hell with that. That's silly. Even if we HAVE to slightly ammend our way of life (which we don't), why not just do that instead of risking its out-and-out destruction?

In any case, this is a typical case of liberals picking one liberty over the next. Every American has a RIGHT to be safe from external enemies. You're choosing a non-existant right to comfort for our external enemies over what is actually in the Constitution.Sorry if you've forgotten who we are. I haven't.

We have a clear document describing who we are. It's the Constitution. If you've forgotten what defines us, I recommend reading it carefully.

This is a broad, unsubstantiated generalization made clearly in support of your ideology.

very well said. But how does the old phrase go... rules are made to be broken :O:

In all seriousness, as a hypothetical, would you be willing to continue fighting with one hand behind your back if the man in your custody knew the location of an NBC weapon in say, NYC? Would, (or could) you stick to your rules knowing that giving this man time and standard applications of the geneva convention would result in the weapon killing millions in NYC?

I have little doubt that similar things have been narrowly averted. Not necessarily NBC, but attacks in some form or other. It wouldn't surprise me if some form of torture was used (I understand truth serums are counted as torture as well). It makes for a tough decision to be made, doesnt it.

Just send them all to the secret CIA prisons that don't exist. The last administration was very good at that

EVERYTHING in this thread is a broad unsubstantiated generalisation made cleary in support of the poster's ideology....

The one thing we can be sure of is that torture will produce good intelligence.

Yes sirree.

A captain who had his ship blown up in port surely is a very competent speaker on national security.
What is it with the american right and military duds?
First Oliver North now this guy?

And the attack was the Captains fault how exactly AntEater?

As the commanding officer, it is his fault.

Oh, I forgot, when a military screwup happens during a democratic administration, it is the administration's fault, if it happens during a republican administration, it is the fault of a misguided individual.
Lebanon 82 was somehow not pinned on Reagan despite ugly micromanagement from the white house down to target selection and flight altitudes, while the "Black Hawk Down" fiasco was Clinton's fault despite the fact that he left the military details totally up to the professionals.

:P

Lets not forget that the sailors on the Cole were under strict orders to NOT fire upon possible aggressors.

Now... where did that order come down from?