[Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram

[g. crabtree]

"you admit that torture happened while denying that anyone in particular (even the lawyers who set the bar at "pain equal to that caused by death;" even the political figures who compelled them to produce that opinion) is responsible for it."

Wrong. I admit that some detainees may have been mistreated and abused. I do not admit that prisoners were tortured as an act of administrative policy. Endlessly mischaracterizing my position is not productive.

g




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Andreas Schou 
  To: g. crabtree 
  Cc: lfalen ; vision2020 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram





  On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 5:51 PM, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

    "Incidentally, I directed this originally at Gary, but he seems unwilling to defend torture on its own terms."  

    My goodness isn't the nascent little ambulance chaser cute when he gets all up on his hind legs and brays about how others should be ashamed?

    The reason that I don't "defend torture" is because that  I see no compelling need to. As I've said before, I do not believe that waterboarding is torture, I do not believe that the previous administration had a policy promoting the use of torture, and  I don't think that your pretending to be the arbiter of all that is righteous, pure and holy necessitates my responding to every idle quack and query that's directed my way. 

  Gary --

  You keep accusing me of being "on a high horse." However: you can defend torture from the low-step of a tricycle. Anyone with a rudimentary conscience, left or right, understands that torture is wrong. To your credit, you appear to have such a conscience; however, you're having a problem of cognitive dissonance where you admit that torture happened while denying that anyone in particular (even the lawyers who set the bar at "pain equal to that caused by death;" even the political figures who compelled them to produce that opinion) is responsible for it.

  Roger has had the courage of his so-called convictions, and is defending torture-qua-torture; torture under its own name. You, on the other hand, seem to lack a commitment to any principle other than partisanship. I'm just wondering that if the FBI, OLC, CIA inspector general, the general responsible for investigating Abu Ghraib, and media reports aren't enough evidence for you, what would be? Do you always take the testimony of criminals above the testimony of those hired to investigate them? If so, is there any way that Sunil can ensure that you're on all of his juries?

  -- ACS


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090428/8080afcd/attachment.html