Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
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?
|
Not proud. Somewhat sickened it was, or seemed at the time, necessary. Should we torture (have Pakistan torture) the no. 3 AQ guy (what's his name, Ali something)? If we can expose some pltos/cells? If you say yes, should we only torture the "top 10."
And making Lindh sit up for 3 days? This is a guy who was in the basement uprising, lived in fucking caves for months, c'mon.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Sorry no. No plebecite for how to deal with al Queda. We need to go with how do we get them talking.
Quote:
|
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.
|
When did we do this? Lindh is in jail for being a Tal;iban, not for any dirt he spilled. Shit. We're letting real terrorists go because our system is not structured to deal with the reality. That guy we learned they let go, because to try him we'd have to let him know about all our intelligence sources, so we deport him. We know he was plotting to blow shit up and our criminal justice system points to "send him overseas." He will kill people, understand? We know it, and yet the system you feel we've thrown out dictates we can't practically try him.
I'm so fucking angry I'm typing slow- spitting the words out- stand down Atticus- you're wrong here.
