Thursday, April 23, 2009
Readings while I'm traveling
How convenient.
The argument against enhanced interrogation/torture. Because, you know, I'm nothing if not fair.
More later!
5 Comments:
By 
Unknown, at
Thu Apr 23, 01:59:00 PM:
I continue to be frustrated by the fact that Democrats only want to examine the RESULTS of enhanced interrogation techniques to judge their effectiveness or necessity. That's like criticizing a police officer for shooting a man who was pointing an unloaded gun at him by saying, "Well, the officer should have known that such harsh methods were not necessary." Horse hockey! The MISSION was very clear. Protect the United States and its citizens from the actions of terrorists. I hate to sound trite, but "Mission Accomplished!"
By Christopher Chambers, at
Thu Apr 23, 02:26:00 PM:
I guess DoD Sec. Gates is reading...rather, reciting...those "con" rather than pro arguments...
...but anyhow, I don't buy the "self-defense" argument pro, as any dick from Torquemada to Hitler to Stalin to the house of Saud, the Shah, the present Islamic Republic, Hammas and Israel can make that claim.
This is MUCH easier to follow:
1.Anytime the United States government or any instrumentality thereof (including the Dept of Interior--can't let those eco-terrorists ride! And HUD--same for ACORN) does it, it's okay, no matter how "enhanced," including removing skin, using car batteries, etc.
Caveat: unless it's a Democratic regime controlling the Executive Branch. We wanna be able to complain about the Dems, hamstring, but then yell "I told you so."
2. Any law enforcement instrumentality of any state, local county or municipality of the US (includes absolution past torture, chain gangs, forced peonage, even aiding/abetting lynching, beatings, shootings based on racial steotypes/negligence in identifying the "shoot-ee," , violations of the anus with objects).
3. Private citizens, of course, as long the person has a reasonable belief that "subject" of some sort of terrorist, mugger, Craigs list stalker, etc. Reasonable shall be a subjective standard, of course we will consult the NRA for their ideas on other guidelines. Being God-fearing and living in certain zip codes also provides a safe harbor.
There. Simple. Concise. Light. No need for moralizing or for consulting treaties and treatises.
Have a nice trip. I pity you now that Bravo has decided to sink the national IQ even lower (in cahoots with Roger Ailes? No, I can't even tag Roger with this) by offering "The Real Housewives of New Jersey" to the franchise. Sorry...
By 
, at
Thu Apr 23, 04:18:00 PM:
Anyone care to try to interpret that blathering? CC, do you post after three drinks or is it four?
By Foxfier, at
Thu Apr 23, 09:09:00 PM:
I think he's saying "Rethuglicans = Hitler and every one else that's nasty!"
Nevermind any reasonable person can see that careful triggering of an automatic response =/= cheese grater to the elbows.
By , at
Fri Apr 24, 09:09:00 AM:
Tom Maguire fact checks the NY Times
justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/levels-of-enhancement.html
and concludes that "Mr. Soufan is, well, misleading us."
