|
|
|
| Tue, Nov. 24 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Dagger in the back
Eric Holder should focus on the sins of al-Qaida, not the CIA
Date published: 9/1/2009 By the White MONDAY-MORNING quarter- Not since Imperial Japan's bombers mauled the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 1941 had America sustained an attack like the Sept. 11 assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Al-Qaida's brazen targeting of civilians sent tremors through every segment of society. From the White House to the FBI to the CIA to the military, those whose primary mission it is to "preserve, protect, and defend" the United States set their jaws and vowed that never again would terrorists find such easy prey in the American people. That terrible September day prompted tough decisions. Now, eight years later, the Monday-morning club has officially convened. Attorney General Eric Holder has named a special prosecutor to consider legal action against CIA employees or contractors possibly complicit in "prisoner abuse." The specifics are contained in a 2004 Justice Department inspector general's report. For instance, an interrogator told Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that his children would be killed if there were any more attacks on the United States. "KSM" is the man who planned the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, where more than 3,000 died, and someone is worried about an oral threat to this monster? Likewise, a CIA questioner threatened Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who plotted the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole that killed 17 sailors and wounded 39, saying, "we could get your mother in here," implying the potential for sexual assault. Who cares? The physical acts in the report that some are questioning include placing pressure on a prisoner's carotid artery or "water dousing"--i.e., pouring water over a prisoner for 10 to 15 minutes. Do such methods come close to the horror experienced by the 9/11 victims or the fire and whirring metal that engulfed the crew of the Cole?
Date published: 9/1/2009
Totally agree with "By the White" and PT Keller.
(posted by
tc_culpeper
, Sep. 4, 2009 3:53 pm)
To try to explain to a bunch of loonies who would support the prosecution of the intelligence community is useless so I won't waste my time. Wonder if you folks will change your tune when something happens (and I assure you it will) that makes 9/11 look like child's play?
I try to stay civil here...
(posted by
TPKeller
, Sep. 1, 2009 5:28 pm)
...but some of these terrorist-loving patsies make me absolutely sick to my stomach. Try reading a history book (and I mean a FACTUAL book, not some liberal revisionist fantasy) about the Japanese treatment of prisoners AND CIVILIANS during WWII, or Vietnamese treatment of prisoners during that war. There is no comparison, and to describe what the CIA has done using the same word is disgusting. Have at it, I'm sure you will whine and complain and pull your hair out. Go ahead, embarrass yourselves even more.
The FreeLance Star Editors Advocates for Torture and Defends Crimanl Activity
(posted by
Einstein
, Sep. 1, 2009 12:39 pm)
You abject cowards. Your transparent political agenda is hard enough to stomach without having to read this disgusting peon to a craven moral relativism.
The convoluted logic you employ to castigate the people who have to the fortitude to "look back" and say we need to understand what happened, who crossed the line, and pursue accountability, not because it will be politically fun, but because we are a moral nation of laws would be laughable -- if its implications weren't so chilling.
"Law" Continued
(posted by
mustang2
, Sep. 1, 2009 11:24 am)
Similarly, though the U.S. accepted the torture provisions of the U.N. Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), our nation rejected the UNCAT’s placing of “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment” on a par with torture. By contrast, Europe generally accepts the UNCAT in toto.
This should clear up a great deal in this discussion and the false torture argument.
The Legal argument from a piece by Andrew McCarthy
(posted by
mustang2
, Sep. 1, 2009 11:23 am)
European nations, for example, have accepted the 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, while the United States has rejected it. Protocol I extends protections to terrorists and imposes an exacting legal regime on combat operations, relying on such concepts as “proportional” use of force and rigorous distinction between military and civilian targets. That is, Protocol I potentially converts traditional combat operations into war crimes.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
