Wasn't me that wrote it. There is another one coming, much longer and with more people commenting, that goes very deeply into the whole question. Well worth reading. Just One Minute has some fantastic people posting there.
Jim Willis wrote: > Nice Post. All you left out was the thwarting of KSM's second wave > directed at California. With just a little water sports we saved > thousands of American lives. You're right; this isn't evidence > gathering, it isn't a building of a prosecution, it is the saving of > American lives and fighting a war. Again; good post. > > On Apr 21, 8:21 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> SteveMG wrote: >> >> /This is about torture or abusing them. Not holding them in jail. Or >> even killing them on the battlefield./No, this was about getting >> information from people who planned operations that killed thousands so >> as to prevent further operations that would kill thousands more. >> >> /It's about stripping them of their humanity. Clearly, if you read the >> memos the OLC lawyers had these thoughts in mind while they outlined the >> interrogation techniques they thought were permissible./ Steve, we have >> people captured that have information, vital to our security who do not >> want to give up said information and are trained to not give up >> information. If the lawyers wanted to strip them of their humanity, it >> was so that they would then provide us with needed information that >> would save lives. KSM definitely knows information about other people in >> Al Qaeda. Definitively. Being the chief logistical planner he KNOWS >> definitively about any upcoming operations, that if carried out >> successfuly WILL kill people in excruciating ways. Any interrogation is >> not just to make them feel pain or humiliate them but to get them to >> provide the needed details. And the principle would hold even if they >> were just using the army field manual. They need to coerce information >> out of people that don't want to divulge said info. That will >> necessarily then be against their will. >> And if you read the memos they went out of their way to find ways that >> reduced damage or qualifications whereas they couldn't use techniques on >> said detainees that crossed over the line. For example, they introduced >> a technique to slam someone against the wall, but then also introduced >> something they would wrap around the persons head so that they didn't >> infact inflict undue damage, and they made the slamming sound louder so >> that it seemed that it was worse than it was, while they were in fact >> minimizing actual damage. They put insects in one guys room because he >> was afraid of insects, but then determined that they had to in fact tell >> him that they were not harmful so as to not cross a line. Do you think >> that when Al Qaeda captures a detainee that they have such >> qualifications. Did you ever see Nick Berg get his head chopped off? I >> don't recall seeing any interoffice memos about how that might be >> crossing a line for Al Qaeda. Yet, libs like yourself keep equating us >> doing our best to minimize harm on detainees and only using enhanced >> techniques when the default techniques failed with things like >> decapitations. It's frankly obscene of you to even make such comparisons. >> And while we're on the subject. Suppose we need to interrogate a >> prisoner and have used the field manual and he doesn't cooperate. In >> other words, standard interrogations failed. But we are reasonably >> certain that he has information about upcoming plans because he is a >> high level target. Can you envision anything we could do that you >> wouldn't construe as torture? I frankly don't understand why in your >> mind any interrogation whatsoever wouldn't be torture since those being >> interrogated don't like being in that position and we are simply >> treating them as a means to an end. >> /Why do we even have limits on how to treat these prisoners? Why were >> the lawyers studying the law and trying to determine what was legal and >> what not? / Because we recognize that there is a line and we don't want >> to cross it, but also recognize that we need to get information from >> some high level targets that if we don't could lead to the deaths of >> hundreds/thousands. But this is also why we have safeguards built into >> any interrogations. And the memos released are nothing but exceptions >> preventing the very torture that you say we are commiting. Does Al Qaeda >> have any such memos preventing them from sawing off someones head? But >> in your mind even raising the temperature in a room after all other >> means have failed is the equivalent to chopping off someone's head. And >> actually here's a question. What was Nick Berg even interrogated about? >> He wasn't. They just chopped off his head. >> >> /Because we live by Western standards of morality and a respect for the >> individual; not a radical Islamic standard./Again, you're the one >> equating what we did which was nowhere near as brutal, done within the >> confines of trying to save lives and prevent further attacks versus >> simply chopping someones head off. Get some damn context,man. We make >> such distinctions in life all the time. >> If you are pulling someones teeth out becuase you want to hurt them >> you're a sadist. If you pull someone's tooth out because its a needed >> surgery you're a dentist. The dentist though is applying novocaine, only >> pulling teeth out that need pulling for the good of the patient. >> Interrogators, whatever their methods are not torturers simply because >> you say so,because those being interrogated don't like to be there. Such >> distinctions shouldn't have to be explained to moral people. Even in >> Christianity which has rules against murder there is the concept of a >> just war (which also requires killing people). >> // >> >> // // >> // // >> >> // Posted by: jr565 | April 21, 2009 at 06:50 PM >> <http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/not-a-lawyer-or-even-a-...>// >> >> // // >> // // >> // // >> // >> >> /"Because we live by Western standards of morality"/ >> >> The procedures used do not fall outside of the physical challenges >> demanded of our own soldiers. It is ridiculous to then claim they are >> too dehumanizing to employ against unlawful combatants who have commited >> war crimes in order to prevent further atrocities. >> >> Our standards of morality *include this for training.* On that basis >> what possible case can be made to exclude them against terrorists to >> prevent mass murder? >> >> // >> // // >> >> // Posted by: boris <http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/> | April 21, >> 2009 at 06:53 PM >> <http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/not-a-lawyer-or-even-a-...>// >> >> // // >> // //// // // >> >> // >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
