Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Intensive interrogation of guys who without question were in a decent position to have information makes sense to me. Especially late 2001, it would have made sense.
|
Question --- if we should be proud of it, why did the AUSA negotiate for Lindh's silence on the conditions under which he was interrogated? And is it just a huge coincidence that Abu Ghraib also happened under the same DoD's watch --- that's what you're saying, right?
If we're a country now thinking, contrary to 200 years of tradition distinguishing us from the rest of the barbaric world, that torture is occasionally justified under certain circumstances, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT FUCKING DEBATE BEFORE WE ACTUALLY START TORTURING PEOPLE. Not after. Before.
And then, if we torture people for "justifiable" intelligence reasons, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE A MOCKERY OF OUR DOMESTIC CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BY USING THOSE CONFESSIONS TO SECURE CONVICTIONS. Are we clear? Get this to your boys in D.C.
