December 6, 2005
"Abu Zubaydah was partial to Kit Kats."
We plied the captured al Qaeda leader with candies, but that was after "he was slapped, grabbed, made to stand long hours in a cold cell, and finally handcuffed and strapped feet up to a water board until after 0.31 seconds he begged for mercy and began to cooperate."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Oops, here come those congrssessional investigations as to why these prisoners weren't allowed to be put into American type prisoners where they owned the inside, could form all type of terrorist organizations within it and be protected against government intrusions on their rights, guaranteed by the ACLU who would rather see young Americans die than deny a terrorist his Kit-Kat. Although, if we really, really need to gain information, it may be okay to do that but only for a day or two otherwise human rights groups will hold hearings.
Soldiers in Iraq and around the world: We'll do all we can to protect you, seriously.
But of course we never torture. Condi and George said so, so it must be true.
Forget the ACLU: call the obesity-scare trial lawyers - a few more interrogations for this guy and they've got themselves a potential client (I want a 10% referral.)
I like these sources that are not named - it makes for good copy and sales. Tattler tales. Personally I don't give a damn if they apply hot irons to his balls. It appears that a fair number of folks simply haven't been able to fullyl register the meaning of 9/11. They want us, our children and our way of life dead. We have such complex responses to such simple intentions, don't we? When the first suitcase nuke goes off in a shipping container in one of our major harbors, all this human rights for terrorists BS will quickly fade away.
"...you blind yourself toward other methods of finding solutions."
Our side is using warfare and reconstruction and targeted killings of terrorist leaders. We are developing economic, political and cultural institutions that will foster democracy. We are 'torturing' people for the purpose of getting information on terrorist plans, not for the mere fun of it. Our government will be held resonsible in every election for the results they get from these strategies.
What are the 'other solutions' that your side talks of?
We have always trusted our leaders. Was it right to fire bomb Dresden? To use nukes on Hiroshima and Nagisaki? I don't really know or care. Maybe both acts shortened WWII. Maybe both reduced total casualties. Maybe not. But we elected leaders to make these decisions.
Indeed, I look at what is being questioned in this war, and look at what was done by our country in previous wars, and am sometimes dumbfounded. Somehow treatment our GIs get in training is worse when practiced on our enemies than nuking two enemy cities and firebombing another one.
No, I am not worried that our elected leaders will get carried away in their zeal to prosecute this war. Rather, I just have to look at Abu Ghraib to see that they will prosecute and send to jail for extended prison terms soldiers who were a lot more restrained than a lot of us would like to be with, in particular, the Islamofascist leadership.
But that is the thing. What we are really talking about is not torture as it has traditionally been defined, but rather how it has been redefined in this context.
No one is seriously talking about doing permanent physical damage to the prisoners. No one is talking about putting them in serious jepardy of losing their lives. Rather, we are really talking about de minimis psychological pressure being recategorized as "torture".
I have often heard of one brand of interrogation during the Vietnam War being to ask one prisoner a question. If he doesn't answer, he is thrown out of the helicopter (to his certain death). The next guy asked usually answers.
I don't know if that really happened, and if it did, if it was our troops, or the ARVN, who did it. But that is not what we are talking about here.
I want assurances that that sort of thing isn't happening. Ditto with what the NV did to, for example, John McCain. Broken bones, small cages, etc.
But there is no indication that that sort of stuff is happening today. Rather, the entire debate is over stuff that would have been considered mild when I was initiating into a fraternity.
It is not torture. So, quit calling it that.
Personally I hope the interrogator got a medal - breaking a major intel source in that little time with no actual physical damage (and considering he's a terrorist, his psychological state is already screwed up, so who cares?) is a pretty notable accomplishment.
Personally I think they ought to skip the cold room and go straight to the waterboard.
And no, these aren't Americans, they aren't in America... the Constitution doesn't apply.
Mary,
Nothing that isn't going on right now already. But that isn't going to help with Zarqawi and his foreign born terrorists. They aren't from Iraq, and giving them a place at the table makes no sense.
That leaves the Iraqi terrorists. As noted, they are continuing attempts to buy them, one way or another. Esp. the ones who are doing it for tribal, etc. reasons. There have been some major successes recently along this line.
But you still have a lot of Saddamite Baathists, whose goals are 1) to regain the predominent share of the Iraqi GNP that they had under Saddam, and 2) escape revenge.
There, we have two choices. We can divide the wealth of the country democratically. Or we can give the Baathists back control and the lion's share of the wealth. We chose the former. Sorry.
But note that that has nothing to do with respect for culture and religion. We can respect the heck out of both of them, while insisting that the Sunni Arabs should only get 20 percent or so of the country's oil wealth.
Should have fed him nothing but Zagnuts and Abba-Zabba, and made him wash it down with Bubble Yum.
He would have cried just like that bin-al-Sheib guy.
BTW, I don't want to know how they broke that Ron Jeremy-looking dude.
Assimilating the enemy in Iraq, to the extent possible, means not thinking we have to kill all the insurgents to succeed. Psychology, recognition of cultural differences, diplomacy, other incentives including well-accounted-for financial incentives, and the effective use of force are other solutions to consider.
--IMO that's what we're doing. It is a difference of opinion, not fact.
Making sure you think things out, being prepared for as many possible outcomes as a principle before taking action -- those are also options that might bring success down the road.
--Generality. IMO that's been done. Yes, it has not been perfect, but what war plan ever was? So if a war lasts more than two months and kills an innocent person we should just forget it and abandon the millions we could have liberated?
Finally, you need to have the people who financially and in spirit and body support you, trust and believe in your leadership, not just in the beginning but also in the end.
--Who are you talking about? The Iraqi government has asked us to stay, the people are optimistic about the future and want us to leave when the job is done.
You argue generalities and high moralism. Yes, I guess I am more cruel than you, yet more people will eventually be free because of it.
Post a Comment