Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy
I guess where you and I disagree on this topic is not whether waterboarding is a big deal, but rather, whether the act of defining waterboarding as torture is a big deal. I am of the opinion that Mitt saying, "Yes it is," or "No, it isnt," is not a big deal. It doesnt put our country at risk, nor does it create a "Jerry Springer" atmosphere.
You seem to be suggesting that Mitt was about the only candidate up on stage that acted in the interests of our national security by refusing to answer with a clear yes or no. By definition, you are implying that McCain has now put our country at a greater risk by answering emphatically. I just dont see how you can suggest that with a straight face.
Does this logic extend to other issues? Should Mitt not talk about his thoughts on immigration? After all, we don't want to embolden more illegals to cross the border. Let's keep our policies a secret...
|
and I myself have served during the Balkan wars I can tell you that everything that hits the media is parsed and evaluated on both sides. You can be sure that yes, Jihadists are listening and are paying attention. I was involved in several investigations with CID back in the early 90's just because of three phone calls. One was an Arab correspondence out of Switzerland regarding securing a load of M16's, the other even more disturbing at the time was a Croatian national out of Sweden wanting to secure MIG20's for the fledgling Croatian Military (remember this was during war time) and I was in the active Theater. However the call that created the most stir and in fact the most concern was the one asking about interrogation techniques. An individual who claimed to be Jewish (later found out to be Lebanese) contacted a Specialist stationed in Germany and began asking questions about how far would the MI would go in getting answers from prisoners.
So yes call me paranoid, but I take any public disclosure of military interrogation policy/techniques very seriously. And I think Waters went way too far by calling Romney evil because he did not want this discussion out in a public forum. Romney was clear that he was against torture. IMO that should be sufficient. I think he was the only candidate that actually was sentient enough to realize that loose lips can in fact sink ships.
The thing about this issue is that the US policy on torture has long been clear. We don't do it. Of course we all know that individuals and small groups have been known to take things into their own hands which has lead to Abu Ghraib type situations. The media gets a hold of this and creates a huge stink which while it is important that these situations are dealt with according to UCMJ, the hype and stink only serve to weaken our position against those we at war with.
So now all of a sudden candidates are somehow required to clarify if they are for or against torture. Why not ask candidates if they are for Police brutality of inmates. I mean it happens, and sometimes there are organized groups that routinely abuse prisoners or those in custody.
Finally my point was that Waters went to far in calling Romney evil for not wanting to disclose information for security reasons. Yes you can think that he is being paranoid and I am fine with that view, but to call him evil even after he clearly stated that he was against torture.
So if you disagree with me you are supporting Waters view that Romney is evil. If you agree with me, than you support my view that Waters went to fall in characterizing Romney as being evil.