On 12/16/2014 8:08 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...
There is no statute of limitation on murder or war crimes.
If the democrats are able to establish that a policy decision like the
interrogations were illegal, the drone strikes would be fair game for
the republicans or just the families of the innocents killed.
Nobody wants to open that Pandora's Box,.
Drone strikes on enemies who choose to hide among "non-combatants" in
unreachable territory, Pakistan eg, and torturing "detainees," are
different matters.
The alternative to drone strikes is invasion, artillery barrages, or
carpet bombing, and occupation - all if you're ambitious.
With Pakistan, the next step is nuclear conflagration.
Is that what you really want?
You called torture "interrogation" Torture is torture.
They concealed that they were torturing. Why?
Because it is a criminal activity.
Drone strikes aren't concealed. They aren't illegal.
So unless drone attacks are declared illegal, quit crying about them.
Republicans and Democrats are free to support torture and drone strikes
alike. Let them stand up and declare it.
I'll point out to you, as I did to Luddite, that this isn't a political
matter. It's a question of law, which is derived from values.
I watched Charlie Rose interview the CIA agent who did the initial
interrogation (using conventional methods) of the 9/11 "mastermind"
(forget his name). The agent said the guy was an arrogant SOB with no
respect for his situation. He taunted and threatened those who grilled
him and had a major criminal type mindset.
The CIA agent said that after one session with water-boarding the
guy was singing like a canary. He, as others have claimed, provided
valuable Intel as to organizational stuff and a future planned attack.
I am not a lawyer but if laws are based on values I have no problem
with him being subjected to water-boarding if it save American lives.