Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
Uh, no. Remember Vietnam? My Lai? Lt. Calley? Sy Hersh? David Halberstam? Walter Cronkite getting blamed after Tet?
And Abu Gharib was NOT ON THE FRONT LINES. It was a prison, and those who worked there were not infrantrymen or in the combat arms.
Throw Haditha back at me instead, and I would still say that there is a fundamental difference between a company commander giving way to blood lust and lawyers in the Justice Department saying that so long as major organ damage doesn't occur that it ain't a violation of the law.
You're a lawyer, right? What's the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder in your state?
|
my point was that some people in harm's way might try to get some of their comrades a benefit.
oh. WWII. you don't think we tortured. I mean sanctioned by the government torture.
what is your basis for the opinion?
as to crim law, I have made an effort not to know anything. when my lowlife cousins call I can tell them i don't know what the fuck.
Specialists. Trust them to do their speciality. 2007 some people still think torture makes sense. You, armed by blogs-a -plenty think not. Do you not ask yourself why people whose job it is to interrogate don't agree? I mean the spartans tortured and it wouldn't continue if it didn't help. do armies still pray to Bal?
