Oh flock...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

So says #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney. Unfortunately the report isn't quite that conclusive.

-spence

The reports are classified. Well at least they were classified. Now anything and everything is subject to release. The Pelosi's of the world don't care one bit about our national security , to them it's just politics as usual.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The reports are classified. Well at least they were classified. Now anything and everything is subject to release. The Pelosi's of the world don't care one bit about our national security , to them it's just politics as usual.

A lot of this report was redacted.

The pro-torture crowd will say that because EIT's were used at any time on some key terrorists, that the harsh methods are justified, regardless of when information was obtained or how credible it was.

This is the clever word game that Cheney has been playing in interviews this week.

Quite the contrary though, I'd note that the inspector who compiled the report states clearly that they couldn't determine if EIT's specifically were responsible for gaining any information.

An interesting note in the report is that KSM told the Red Cross he made a lot of stuff up just to get them to stop using the harsher methods, and that he tried to only give information he believed we already knew.

The net is we will probably never know for sure.

-spence

[justplugit]

While suddenly on the moral high ground investigation, can someone tell me

why there was no investigation into the bomb down Gaddafi's chimney,

which put him on ice for quite awhile, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan aspirin factory and

the recent asasination of one of al qaeda's top 5 leaders?

Makes a few dunkings, sleep deprivation and verbal threats child's play compared to the above.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

While suddenly on the moral high ground investigation, can someone tell me

why there was no investigation into the bomb down Gaddafi's chimney,

which put him on ice for quite awhile, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan aspirin factory and

the recent asasination of one of al qaeda's top 5 leaders?

Makes a few dunkings, sleep deprivation and verbal threats child's play compared to the above.

I'm sure some might say there's room to argue the legality of such actions under US Law and International conventions. I'd note that Clinton has taken a ton of heat for his "illegal" use of force in the Balkans, primarily by the GOP.

...but that's not really the point.

There's a big difference between how you treat someone at arms length vs a person who's under your "control".

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

There's a big difference between how you treat someone at arms length vs a person who's under your "control".

-spence

Ya mean there's a difference between killing with a knife or killing
with a rocket ?

Only difference is the guy who gets bombed never knows what hit him.
They're both dead.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Only difference is the guy who gets bombed never knows what hit him.
They're both dead.

If someone stands before you, and you know they mean you harm, you may shoot them.

But if that same person is in cuffs and rendered impotent, even though you know they still would like to do you harm...do you still kill them?

I think most would agree that wouldn't be moral. Certainly most if not all our laws are designed around such beliefs.

Blame the Jesus, he started all this "turn the other cheek" stuff

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

If someone stands before you, and you know they mean you harm, you may shoot them.


-spence

Does that mean that if a terrorist is 2,000 miles away in a house making a
plan to do harm to innocent victims, you don't send a Tomahawk
to stop him?

Have there been any captured terrorists that have been killed by us in
handcuffs?