Text 11281, 152 rader
Skriven 2009-05-20 20:17:42 av JOHN FITZGERALD (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av DAN CEPPA
Ärende: Re-examining PR Ploys
=============================
-



JF>   Nope, only claims have been made by a few hand
JF>   picked people.

DC>   Provide the creditable intel obtained via torture.

JF>    Last I've heard, any such intel was and remains classified.

DC>   Thus, you are running on an empty claim to goes against
DC>   established facts from the FBI, military and othet intel 
DC>   groups "not of thr body".

   This is an empty claim.    All one has to do is ask themselves.. 'If
a chat works, why would they abandon that and use something that
doesn't?



DC>   No, you have it quite convoluted.  Consider yourself 
DC>   under torture and you don't have the info they want.  
DC>   How do you get them to stop?

JF>   No one has said enhanced interrogation is going to produce the
JF>   truth if the prisoner doesn't know it, so your question is bogus.

DC>   No, it's entirely germaine to the topic.  If you know 
DC>   the torture victim has certain knowledge, you already 
DC>   knew the answer ahead of time.

   Dan, if they already know the answer, they wouldn't have to
interrogate the prisoner in the first place.   Now shoot yourself in the
other foot.



JF>   It's like you're comparing a slap in the face with a 
JF>   beating from a lead pipe.

DC>   Torture is torture.

JF>   A slap in the face is a slap in the face.  A beating 
JF>   is a beating.  Waterboarding is waterboarding.   
JF>   Enhanced interrogation is Enhanced ...

DC>   It is still torture.

    Sorry, waterboarding is still something you can get over of within
minutes, no matter what sort of ugly label you try to attach to it.
Why else would Jessee Ventura allow himself to be subjected to it?




DC>   Waterboarding was peosecuted by the US as torture 
DC>   since at least 1898.  Nothing has changed since then. 
DC>   It is still a crime.  

JF>   This is just a legal distinction.

DC>   Yes, it is illegal and W and company broke the US law
DC>   as well as moral edicts against such acts. 

   If  you think the Bush crowd are the first ones to employ harsh
interrogation methods, you're living in a partisan fantasy.  And while
you're pursuing Bush and co for "war crimes", make sure you go after
Clinton and all others who are still around.   Problem, guys?



JF>   Second, no one method is going to produce positive 
JF>   results 100% of the time and no doubt some PR individuals 
JF>   will parade the failures around while ignoring the 
JF>   positive results.
 
DC>   Yeah, do more often, like 183 times to get 
DC>   youe false information.

JF>   Where are you getting 183 from?

DC>   It's the number of times that one prisoner was 
DC>   waterboarded in one month. It was something like 
DC>   6 times per day, all because he wasn't giving out 
DC>   what the torturers wanted to hear.  Yeah, 1 month 
DC>   to get an answer, which was probably bogus anyhow.  
DC>   That's how effective torture is when immediate 
DC>   \intel is need.  

   Where are you getting 183 from?  In any event, harsh interrogation
isn't used if there is no urgency. 



JF>   Third, if waterboarding and the like is the overall failure PR
JF>   people  claim it is, why have they used it for so many years?
 
DC>   It's quite simple:  W had his crew draw up so-called 
DC>   "legal opinions" that, in themselves, were illegal. 

JF>   So simple you couldn't answer the question.  Again, why 
JF>   would they resort to ie.waterboarding if it was such 
JF>   a categorical failure?

DC>   Because they are truly ignorant sadists.

    Now you're just repeating the empty claim.  A sadist is someone who
likes to hurt people for no reason.   People who get tough in an effort
to win a war and save lives, people who have to deal with thugs who know
where bombs are being made, where their superiors are held up, etc,
don't fit your rather juvenile and quite naive opinion of folks you
never met and the thugs they have to deal with.




DC>   They've gotten good intel UNTIL others 
DC>   decided to use harsher methods.  

JF>   Oh, they were getting good intel, and then decided 
JF>   to use methods that don't work?

DC>   Rummy didn't get his bogus Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
DC>   You really need to keep.

   Sorry, your claim that they would abandon successful methods for ones
that don't work is absurd.



JF>   Not around here they haven't.  Esp this one which
JF>   you ignored entirely:

JF>   If a 'chat' with the prisoner yields the results you 
JF>   have been told it would, why haven't they just stuck 
JF>   with that and never resorted to more harsher methods?

JF>   Tell us why, Dan.

DC>   The very [fact?] that the US declared such actions as 
DC>   illegal since the time before George Washington was 
DC>   president should be good enough for anyone with a 
DC>   moral conscience. 

    My moral conscience prevents me from letting innocent people die
because I want to pacify the Mary Poppins crowd.


---
 *   *
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)