Torture or not we cannot ban it
--posted by Tony Garcia on 11/07/2005
As I check out the various sites that somehow refer to my blog I came across This one.
What a JokeBecause, you must always have the option available and pray that you do not need it. The same reason you must let your enemies know that you are willing to use a nuke...the willingness is a weapon on its own.
"We do not torture." -- President Bush, November 7, 2005
"Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terror suspects in U.S. custody, according to participants in a closed-door session." -- MSNBC, November 4, 2005
If that's the case, why threaten to veto a law that would simply codify what Bush alleges is already the current policy?
But Zak asks some questions about what is torture and what is not. Let me answer you...keeping in mind that a lot of the allegations about "torture" are fabricated by anti-war freaks.
does he regard the repeated, forcible near-drowning of detainees to be torture? I'm going to say that this is close to a yes, but in the case of enemy combatants the answer is No.
Does he believe that tying naked detainees up and leaving them outside all night to die of hypothermia is "torture"? If they actually die, yes. I do not believe there is truth to this allegation of death by hypothermia so let's take it a step back. Leaving them naked and outside, is that torture? No.
Does he believe that beating the legs of a detainee until they are pulp and he dies is torture?Again, not certain that there is truth to this allegation. If they die, yep that is easily torture. "Until they are 'pulp"...the legs turn to liquid? Did not know that was possible. Bruising an enemy combatant (who is NOT covered by the Geneva Convention) is a far less offense than what those enemy combatants do to civilians and military captives. So, no, that is not torture to them.
Does he believe that beating detainees till they die is torture? Same as the previous answer. You, Zak, are terribly gulible.
Does he believe that using someone's religious faith against them in interrogations is "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment and thereby illegal? Absolutely NOT. Give those sons-of-bitches pork for meals. Block the windows so they do not know what direction they are facing. Do NOT allow any books in their cells including the Koran.
I hope that you begin to understand who your enemy actually is. You may hate Bush but he would not cut your head off. He is not calling for your execution simply because you are not of a particular religion. The people you are trying to protect are calling for the extermination of Jews, the elimination of non-Muslims and the purification of the non-extremist Muslims. They don't play drowning games with their prisoners. They don't have dogs bark meanly at their prisoners. They don't make them go through naked pyramids.
They cut the heads off of their prisoners and they do not care if the person is an innocent civilian or military personnel. To them everyone who is not Muslim fundamentalist/extremist are the enemy and deserve death.
Zak, you forget who your enemy is and turn your sights on your own countrymen who are trying to protect your existence. You turn your sights on your own fellow citizens who give you the freedom to speak out through your hatred. The shame is not that you turn your hatred towards your own, the shame is that you are so blinded by your hatred for those who disagree with you that you are unable to recognize the fact that your hatred fuels your intolerance...just like the murderous evil from the midst of Satan's vomit that is Muslim-extremism.
********** UPDATE **********
Welcome to the readers of Digital Warfare. Tom, I'm sorry that one post for you makes this blog untenable in your view. I strive to make it to about 4 or 5 a week. ;)
I'm actually receptive to debate/arguement so your posting is welcomed. Sometimes I am wrong on stuff (contrary to the blog's title). Typically it is just a matter of degree that I'm wrong on. ;)
4 Comments:
It was a DoD coroner who used the word 'pulpified' came from a DoD coroner's comments about the leg muscles of a man basically tortured to death by Americans at Bagram airbase. Repeated 'peroneal strikes' -- kneeings to where thigh muscles are attached to the knees -- were used; people thought it was funny to hear him scream.
(link to my blog, link and link to related NYTimes stories).
Also, from the 1st NYTimes story:
Sergeant Yonushonis described what he had witnessed of the detainee's last interrogation. "I remember being so mad that I had trouble speaking," he said.
He also added a detail that had been overlooked in the investigative file. By the time Mr. Dilawar was taken into his final interrogations, he said, "most of us were convinced that the detainee was innocent."
Tom,
If you have another source I will give it credit. Unfortunately I think it has been shown to even the uninterested bystander that the New York Times credibility is that of the National Enquirer in the 1980s.
Thank you at least for trying to advance the discourse. I honestly give you plenty of credit for that!!
You have caused me to reevaluate the degree of physical harm I would call torture. More importantly I have realized that I failed to articulate a very key component of what torture I believe is permissible (I do support torture in very narrow parameters).
Post a Comment
<< Home