Send it to me, I'll post it. [email protected]. Or ConservativeSpringfield.com
On Apr 21, 8:48 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
