Text 11280, 344 rader
Skriven 2009-05-20 20:17:38 av JOHN FITZGERALD (1:123/140)
Kommentar till en text av BOB ACKLEY
Ärende: (1/2) Re-examining PR Ploys
===================================
JF> Baloney. It wasn't until Obama took office that a few
JF> select individuals 'came forward' to provide propaganda
JF> to make Bush and co the scapegoat in an obvious PR ploy
JF> to support Obama and placate terrorists lying in wait
JF> here and elsewhere.
BA> Actually a whole lot of individuals objected to the
BA> 'enhanced interrogation' tactics from the gitgo.
BA> Some officers 'got religion' after they retired
BA> because their pensions and benefits were safe...
Oh, I'm sure there were some, but can you name one?
BA> Rumsfeld did not tolerate any dissension in those
BA> under him, especially any *public* dissension;
As he should if he's gonna run a tight ship. When you sign on board,
if you don't know what you're in for, you have no business being there,
blowing your nose in front of the world and undermining the our military
and intelligence.
BA> Now that a new administration is in office people
BA> apparently don't feel as 'constrained' as they
BA> did under Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Oh that's great. Just what we need, a nose blower every time
something doesn't look picture perfect to them.
BA> When the photos of Abu Ghraib became public Rumsfeld
BA> wasn't mad because the events depicted happened, he
BA> was mad because the pictures got out.
That is a legitimate concern. So what?
BA> "How do we keep secrets when everybody over
BA> there has a digital camera" is almost a
BA> direct quote of what he said.
And if some individuals had their way, they would insist that a
member of the ACLU follow each and every one of our agents around with
a camera.
BA> Experienced, professional interrogators don't
BA> support the practice.
JF> Oh I see. All those who 'chat' with prisoners are
JF> experienced... those who use harsher methods are not experienced.
JF> Bullshit, Bob. If a simple chat or interview produced the
JF> positive results PR people claim, they wouldn't have to resort
JF> to harsher methods. Wake up.
BA> I'm wide awake, John. Experienced interrogators, both military
BA> and FBI, objected to this administration's handling of its
BA> victims from the gitgo.
I'm sure there were some, no doubt trying to cover their butt
because they see the partisan lynch mob doing the foot work of our
enemies. You know, the same ones who use real torture and who are
rolling on the floor with laughter over the idea that a mob of Mary
Poppins types are out their waving their partisan umbrellas around.
'You nasty boys!'
BA> The demands for 'enhanced interrogation' did not come from
BA> the people doing the interrogations, they came down from
BA> Cheney's office. In point of fact once the torturing began
BA> the FBI *removed* its investigators from the process, as did
BA> the US Navy, both on advice of their legal teams.
The advice of a "legal team"? Their concerns were obviously legal
and sheds no light on enhanced interrogation methods either way.
Again, if a simple chat or interview produced the positive results
PR people claim, they wouldn't have to resort to harsher methods.
BA> In point of fact, *all* of the military JAGs opposed the
BA> administration's 'enhanced interrogation' tactics on
BA> both legal and Constitutional grounds...
"All"?? That one-sided/lopsided claim is obviously the product of
partisan spin. Where did you dredge this claim up?
BA> ...and *all* of the military JAGs were intentionally kept
BA> 'out of the loop' WRT to the legalities of those tactics.
Again, their concerns were obviously legal and sheds no light on
enhanced interrogation methods either way.
BA> In point of fact the *logs* of the torture interrogation
BA> of 'Detainee 063' at Guantanamo reveal that he didn't
BA> give them much of anything...
JF> Last I heard, this sort of thing was classified.
JF> Where are you getting your information from?
BA> "Torture Team", by Philippe Sands, 2008. According to
BA> the book the logs of that detainee's interrogations were
BA> published on the Internet and parts of them are included
BA> in the book.
Sands is just another leftist college professor in London who was
at odds with Bush and Blair over Iraq long before "torture" became a
(partisan) issue. I wouldn't trust his opinion of Bush, Blair, etc
any more than I would Saddam Hussein's if he were still alive.
Another partisan hack.
DC> You are either going to get false answers or, at best,
DC> the false answers that you want.
JF> They say a person will tell you what you want to hear
JF> under torture, so if that person knows the truth, they
JF> will tell you, because that is what you want to hear.
JF> Easy math, Dan.
BA> That person may or may not know the truth...
JF> And in the event they don't know no method will produce it,
JF> including you 'chat' approach to interrogation.
BA> Which isn't going to stop anybody from beating the
BA> stuffing out of the victim, is it?
It's not going to force them to 'beat' anyone either. What is your
point?
BA> ...and in any case that person is going
BA> to tell the sadistic psychopath...
JF> You're reverting to prejudice and name calling and have
JF> no idea what sort of people you are referring to.
JF> Of course, at this point that's your only option.
JF> If you can't argue your points, throw mud at our guys.
JF> Thanks, Bob.
BA> Someone who inflicts pain on another is a sadist..
You mean if I punch someone in the nose because he insults my wife it
makes me a 'sadist'? Seems you just throw slurs around by habit.
BA> ...and someone who enjoys doing that is a psychopath.
And anyone who allows innocent people to die because they didn't have
the stomach to get tough with these thugs belongs in Mary Poppin's
knitting circle.
BA> It seems readily apparent that at least some if not
BA> most of this government's 'interrogators' fit one or
BA> both descriptions.
You are assuming there were no Clinton holdovers in Bush's camp, so
your frantic attempt to hang this all on one coat hanger is a little
naive.
And how many of Bush's people are still around? Let's start with
Robert Gates, CIA director under Bush, now Obama's choice for Secretary
of Defense. And Obama himself has increased troop levels, won't fund
gitmo closure, is still using tribunals and is handing out bail-out
money, just like Bush, only ten times as worse. One day you guys should
wake up to the fact that you're running around in a circle shooting
yourselves in the foot with your partisan psychosis.
BA> ...questioning him what he thinks that sadistic psychopath
BA> wants to hear. Whether that is the truth or not is immaterial,
BA> the victim will say whatever he (or she) has to say to get the
BA> torture to stop.
JF> Including telling the truth. And if they know they truth, they
JF> will reveal it. After all, they will say anything to get the
JF> "torture" to stop. Correct? Explain how this negates telling
JF> the truth.
BA> How does your sadistic psychopath know whether or
BA> not what s/he's hearing from his/her victim is the truth?
I could ask you the same thing about your 'chat' approach to
interrogation. How do you know the prisoner isn't just jerking you
around at his leisure knowing you won't even take his blanket away?
Again, if a prisoner will 'tell you anything' under torture, he will
also tell you the truth. After all, 'the truth' falls under the heading
of 'anything', does it not? If they don't know the truth, they will
find out it's not. If they know it, they will also find out. So much
for the invented dilemma.
DC> After all, do you really believe all those witches who
DC> confessed to witchcraft really were witches?
JF> First, you are comparing hideous acts of torture with enhanced
JF> interrogation methods (waterboarding, etc) It's like you're
JF> comparing a slap in the face with a beating with a lead pipe.
BA> At least four victims of that 'enhanced interrogation'
BA> by your sadistic psychopaths *DIED* as a direct result
BA> of that 'enhanced interrogation.'
JF> Document that claim please. Then document your silly
JF> "sadistic psychopath" claim. So far all you've done
JF> is parrot the assumption.
BA> "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer, Anchor Books, May 2009.
BA> "Torture Team" by Philippe Sands, Palgrave MacMillan, 2008.
Ha! Get a load of these titles. Not too biased, are they? I'm
waiting for Saddam Hussein's account on the matter. No doubt he was
their ghost writer.
BA> You won't read either of them, neither is on Cheney's or
BA> Limbaugh's 'approved reading' list...
Your notion that I have to consult an 'approved reading list' only
tells me, yet again. you're operating at the partisan level, not on an
objective level.
BA> - although Ms. Mayer is a recognized journalist and
BA> Mr. Sands is a professor of International Law.
Sand's knowledge of International law sheds no light on enhanced
interrogation methods either way, and Mayer is another leftist partisan
hack for the New Yorker who opposes the war on terror in all its
aspects. It's like your asking a vegetarian about the merits of eating
meat. Forget it.
Again, no one can debate this issue very honestly, all that's been
done is repeating empty PR claims and now references to books written
by stone cold leftist partisan hacks who play right into the hands of
our enemies, none of which can square off with the tough questions:
WHY should a prisoner talk if he knows you will never even
take his blanket away?
WHY do they use ie.waterboarding if a 'chat' will work?
BA> There was also an Iraqi general who died in US military
BA> custody after having been beaten and stuffed upside down
BA> into a sleeping bag, where he suffocated.
BA> That back in 2003 or 2004.
Which doesn't shed any light on enhanced interrogation either way.
JF> Soldiers who kill during battle do not 'love to murder'
JF> just because they shoot at the enemy. Intel people are not
JF> psycho's...just because the get tough with prisoners.
JF> This is all a partisan mud throwing assumption with nothing
JF> to support it but more assumptions.
BA> Soldiers in battle are not dealing with an enemy
BA> that's helpless and usually in shackles.
Tell that to all the knit-wits who yell 'murderers! baby killers!'
at our troops. Tell that to the morons who think we just want to
"capture and torture all of 'em". ie.Arabs.
BA> In battle the enemy is usually armed and trying to
BA> inflict harm on the soldier(s), that's not the
BA> case in prison camps.
In prison camps the people we subject to enhanced interrogation know
where the bomb factories are, and/or where the safe houses are, and/or
where the next shipment of explosives is coming from, and/or where their
superiors are held up, etc etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.....
Or do you think we just line them all up and "torture" everyone without
good reason? Apparently you do. Aside from avoiding the tough
questions, why else would you slur them all as "sadistic psycho's"?
BA> There's a very good reason that the CIA ordered the videotapes
BA> that were made of some of its 'enhanced interrogation' sessions
BA> destroyed -
JF> Sure, to make sure sensitive intel doesn't fall into the
JF> hands of our enemies foreign or domestic and to protect the
JF> identities of CIA personnel. This amazes you?
BA> Actually it's because they provided evidence of crimes
BA> being committed. Destruction of evidence and obstruction
BA> of justice are both felonies,
What would you call someone who is acting on behalf of and receive
funds from foreign entities to persecute our gov? Org's and
individuals like CAIR, Holy Land Foundation, ACLU, Sami Al-Arian, etc,
often do their foot work in the on going effort to impede our government
and military any which way they can...or do you assume this sort of
thing has never happened, many times, before? Knowing there are plenty
of partisan psycho's ready to do their foot work, I'm sure they rest
much easier knowing our captives have nothing to worry about if they
don't talk.
This is one of the main reasons I oppose this PR campaign against
enhanced interrogation. Just another way to limit our options and have
our people constantly looking over their shoulder with one reservation
and distraction after another. While much of the world employs real
torture, we're running around in circles shooting each other in the foot
over things like waterboarding and putting panties on someone's head.
Mean while people like yourself are all aghast over such petty bullshit
they're laughing all the way to the mosque, you know, the ones they
store weapons and explosives in.
---
* *
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)
|