[Vision2020] Nation of Laws

[Andreas Schou]

Roger --

I'll respond to this later, but I never thought I'd see (literal) Stalinist
propaganda being used -- alongside Martin Luther King -- to justify torture.


-- ACS

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:38 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Sunil
> You are twisting my meaning. Torture is not to be promoted. Getting
> information by soft techniques is to be preferred. All I am saying is that
> if information cannot be obtained any other way and the interrogator will
> not use methods such as waterboarding to get information that might prevent
> and attack on us for fear of being prosecuted, then that is cowardice.
> Andreas is wrong on several points. Britain did use torture according to
> the broad definition on SS an Gestapo prisoner.
> thepurplecenter.blogspot.com
> blogs.dailymail/donsurber/goo/05/01/82831
> 1nfromationi:peparation.com
> freeinternentpress.com
> There have been reports that the US used torture in World War II also. This
> has been reported in the Socialist Worker. A group of former World War II
> vets supposedly reported this as part of the protest against Bush. This may
> be so but I do not think the are a credible source. This needs other
> verification.
> The Union Army used torture in the Civil War. Documented cases involve the
> torture of some of 'Quantrill's Raiders  and some tortured southern Women.
> See The Fate of Liberty by Mark E Neely Jr.  and Virginia's Civil War by
> Peter Wallenstein.
> Therer were some northern prisoner of war camps  where the prisoners were
> treated very poorly. They just are not as well known as Andersoinville.
> None of this of course should be used to justify current treatment.
> I think Andreas is also wrong on the Geniva Convention. This applies to
> Enemy Combatants in uniform. Those not in uniform can be shot.
> Hypothetical situation. It is thought that a prisoner has information about
> a lethal weapon soon to be realesd that will wipe out most of humanity and
> soft techniques have not worked. Would you still confine interrogations to
> setting down with them for milk and cookies? Keep in mind that these are not
> your average moslems but fanatics that think that the more people they take
> with them the greater the glory to them.
> There was a ray of hope in Obama's recent talk. He said in response to a
> question that he would do what ever was necessary to prevent an attack on
> the US. This is only a glimmer of hope however an Obama's play book seems to
> be "The Prince" by  Macheavelli.
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: Sunil Ramalingam sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:32:47 -0700
> To: vision 2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Nation of Laws
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Roger,
> >
> > Andreas has already talked about how civil disobedience demonstrates that
> existing laws are unjust. I cannot comprehend how you can compare civil
> disobedience to laws banning torture.
> >
> > Are you saying laws banning torture are unjust?
> >
> > You keep saying that to fail to torture in order to save lives is
> cowardice.  We clearly view 'cowardice' in different ways.
> >
> > I think a coward is a person who would order torture, or who would
> him/herself torture a prisoner.  The prisoner is helpless and in custody.
> The captor has complete and total control of that person. To torture such a
> helpless person is a monstrous act of cowardice and is despicable.
> >
> > Yet you are accusing the law-abiding person who refuses to torture of
> cowardice.
> >
> > You otherwise seem to be decent, but I find the things you say on this
> issue incredible. Last week you said that a person who fails to torture a
> captive should be prosecuted for dereliction of duty. So you want to abuse
> governmental power to prosecute the law-abiding.
> >
> > You call that a nation of laws? I don't.
> >
> > Sunil
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:14:09 -0700
> > > From: lfalen at turbonet.com
> > > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > Subject: [Vision2020] Nation of Laws
> > >
> > > For some reason "reply all" did not work on your post.
> > > Yes I thing we should be a Nation of Laws. To not be would result in
> anarchy or a dictatorship.
> > > This does not mean that we should blinding follow all laws. Laws that
> violate peoples freedom or put us in harms way in national security should
> be opposed even at the peril of going to jail as those in the civil rights
> movement did. To  do other wise is cowardice.
> > > Roger
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > >  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
> > > =======================================================
> >
> >
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090506/3b3524b8/attachment.html