Comments:President Bush vetoes CIA waterboarding ban
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
I'm glad he veto it, this "people" don't even believe in basic human rights so why we have to show human rights too them when they want to kills us all and i would do anything to save human lives that means if i have to give the terrorist 30 seconds of hell then send him back to his cell when he get 3 meals a day. --220.127.116.11 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- They are alleged to be terrorists, thy have not been confirmed terrorists --Anonymous101 (Talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you torture them, how does that make YOU any better than them. Basically you are lowering yourself to their level. 18.104.22.168 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the CIA a terrorist group?
- In effect the CIA becomes a terrorist organization . Wiktionary describes a terrorist "anyone who uses terror as a weapon in a political struggle." Below are the facts
- Water-boarding uses terror
- The war on terror is a political struggle
In contrast to the American presidents that we look back on as inspirations, imagine how we will look back at decisions like this. Imagine how we will look back at what Bush made our country. We have become the complete antithesis of a role model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The word "alleged" is used of all things. So people who are not in uniform (and other things the sorta disqualify them from Geneva), don't follow the geneva convetions by any means, are NOT citizens of the U.S. (with a few rare exceptions), must be given the same due process rights as citizens and should be treated as such.
Well at war, when people are shooting at you, there isn't due process. You shoot back, or die. If you want to believe crazy things like giving these pieces of trash equal rights to actual soldiers at war, or worse that of U.S. citizens, you should join the crazies that think we have to wait two weeks for approval to listen to phone calls from known terrorist supsects that just happen to have a U.S. number at the other end becuase they think that Bush himself is personally listening in to their own intranational phone sex.(126.96.36.199 03:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
- "The main reason this program has been effective is that it allows the CIA to use specialized interrogation procedures to question a small number of the most dangerous terrorists under careful supervision " -- weekly radio adress from the alleged most idiotic man on earth (188.8.131.52 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
- note: it is still good to doubt public officials. Try to find a source contrary or supportive of this alleged claim. --184.108.40.206 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
WATERBOARDING IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN THE CONTEXT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND AGAINST THE TERRORISTS. IT IS NOT A PRESIDENTIAL ISSUE BUT WHITE HOUSE CONTROLLED BY ANY PRESIDENT SHOULD DEFEND IT AS A POTENT TOOL AGAINST ANTI-TERROR AND ANTI- NATIONAL ACTIVITIES. PRESENT WHITEHOUSE IS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN DEFENDING ITS USE AGAINST THE TERRORISTS.