[Vision2020] "Harsh" Interrogations -As ye sow, so shall you

[Joe Campbell]

Good question!

Let's not forget the lessons of our country, our democracy: persons  
have rights, and rights deserve protection. If it turns out that we  
have rights, but not our enemies, than that would make us a sham.

Joe Campbell

On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:28 PM, <bear at moscow.com> wrote:

> Roger,
>
> WHERE do you draw the line as far as "technique" is concerned?
> IF the alleged terrorist is a woman, is it ok to rape her till she  
> tells us about the plot
> to bomb
> LA?
> Or a man for that matter?
>
> AND remember, IF it's justified for the US to do it, it is justified  
> for everyone else
> too!
>
> The reason it's referred to as a "slippery slope" is that the only  
> direction to go is DOWN
> HILL!
>
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> That's an extremely dangerous point of view, Roger.  How far do you  
>> take
>> it?  It's possible that daily random inspections of citizen's  
>> houses by
>> SWAT teams could yield some data.  Or that torturing every Muslim in
>> America would also yield results.  The Internet could be used to pass
>> encrypted information between terrorist cells, maybe it should be  
>> shut
>> down?  Perhaps a "shoot-on-sight" curfew would help make us safer  
>> from
>> the threat of terrorism?
>>
>> I'm tired of this country being run by a bunch of cowards.  Draw a  
>> moral
>> line in the sand, and stick to it.  Do what is right because it is
>> right, not because it is expedient.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> lfalen wrote:
>>> Bear
>>> You are wrong on this.
>>> Because a confession was extracted fron this lady does not mean  
>>> that she was a spy.
> What
> we may have done at GITMO had no bearing on how Iran conducts  
> interrogations. They would
> use brutal tactics no matter what we do.
>>> As to our security I believe the following:
>>> 1. If an interrogator thinks that there is good reason to believe  
>>> a detainee has
> information of an impending attack and does not use what ever means  
> is necessary to obtain
> that information and
>>> 2 There is a subsequent attack that results in a loss of life.then
>>> 3. Those interrogators should be prosecuted for dereliction of duty.
>>> Former CIA Director Casey said that over 50% of the valid  
>>> information about al-Quaeda
> came from detainees and that an attack on L.A was thwarted by  
> information obtained from
> KSM.
>>> Roger
>>>
>>> -----Original message-----
>>> From: bear at moscow.cotwo year period?  How about ten years?m
>>> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:50:18 -0700
>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> Subject: [Vision2020] "Harsh" Interrogations -As ye sow, so shall  
>>> you reep
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well, what we have said is fine, is now coming back to bite us.
>>>>
>>>> American-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi was sentenced  to eight  
>>>> years' jail on
> Saturday
>>>> after
>>>> being convicted in a secret trial of spying for the United  
>>>> States. Her Iranian-born
>>>> father, Reza
>>>> Saberi, says she may have been tricked into a confession,  
>>>> believing she would be
> released
>>>> if
>>>> she co-operated with the authorities. He said his daughter was so  
>>>> depressed by her
>>>> sentence -
>>>> the harshest ever given to a dual national on security charges in  
>>>> Iran - that she is
>>>> threatening
>>>> to go on hunger strike.
>>>>
>>>> Will they force feed her like we have force fed the prisoners at  
>>>> Guantánamo Bay
> Detention
>>>> Camp when they have gone on hunger strikes? IF they do, what  
>>>> makes us think we have a
>>>> right
>>>> to object?
>>>>
>>>> Did they use enhanced interrogation techniques to discover that  
>>>> she was a spy? And
>>>> remember,
>>>> she was arrested for SPYING. If she was in the United States  
>>>> could we have sued
> enhanced
>>>> interrogation techniques?  US Supreme Court Justice Antonin  
>>>> Scalia said on BBC Radio
> 4
>>>> that
>>>> since these methods are not intended to punish they do not  
>>>> violate the Eighth
> Amendment
> to
>>>>
>>>> the United States Constitution, barring "cruel and unusual  
>>>> punishment", and as such
> may
>
>>>> not
>>>> be unconstitutional.
>>>>
>>>> Well, we started this dog fight, now we pay. How do we get back  
>>>> on the moral high
> ground
>>>> where this kind of behavior from ANY GOVERNMENT is wrong? I  
>>>> believe it starts with
> the
>
>>>> indictment and arrest of George W. Bush et al. Or don't they  
>>>> think they'd get a fair
>>>> trial? They
>>>> sure as hell would get better treatment awaiting trial than they  
>>>> gave!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>> This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>>>>           http://www.fsr.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>           http://www.fsr.com/
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================