Hey guys, I read the latest Esquire magazine where an Army interrogator talked about interrogation techniques they used. It was shocking, but not entirely surprising. What Econo-Girl found surprising was that the interrogators were being lied to by military attorneys.
The Army interrogators were told that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to the people they were questioning. Why? Because the Attorney General said so. Now of course, no other U.S. Attorney General has ever held that opinion and no court has ever agreed with him, but never mind. The non-attorney interrogators were told that if anyone went to prison for what they were doing, it would be the lawyers telling them it was OK.
Come, now. You're sober, right? How could you possibly believe that? When has a pencil-necked attorney ever stuck his head out?
Believe Econo-Girl when she tells you that if you did it, you will be nailed for it. Wasn't Ollie North? Except you won't be getting a radio show out of the deal. After all, you'll be a torturer. Who would want to get behind that?
A little escape to the beach has done a lot to clarify things for Econo-Girl. Most of the post that started this whole mess was about outlining the law to non-attorneys who might be put in compromising legal positions. I saw it as a way of empowering them to say 'no' to prison for themselves. In retrospect, that's what got me fired. Not the sentence fragment that everyone is so hysterical about. I was going to expose the legal lie.
10 comments:
Military personnel, at that level, are in a sticky situation. If you don't obey your orders, you get tossed in the can or worse; at the same time, you're responsible for your actions if you follow an unlawful order.
The military spends a lot of time and effort beating people into conformance and subjugation to authority.
They don't spend a lot of time beating people into disobeying potentially unlawful orders.
The military spends a lot of time and effort beating people into conformance and subjugation to authority.
Exactly. The ones who get busted are usually those who decided for themselves to take a particular action. When it might become embarrassing to the powers that be, that is when legal action is taken.
Econo-Girl, I do believe you are right in your conclusion regarding the cause of your firing. You know the culture. You know how dissent is dealt with, particularly if it seems oblique in any way. Insinuating that people should question their superiors is certainly frowned upon. But, hekk, that's in any environment, not just the IC.
I read your post and thought it a bit edgy - but certainly not worthy of all the hubbub, certainly not worth your being fired.
Now, you want to discuss torture. Do you have a working definition?
CRIS YOUR A HERO IN A SPEC. WAY YOU STOOD UP TO A BAND OF TRAITORS WHO PLANNED 911.
DICK RINGLEADER HAD ALL OUR FIGHTER PROTECTION FOR EAST COAST CONFUSED WITH PHONEY BLIPS ON THERE RADAR SCREENS ON AM OF 911.
WHY WAS FIRE AT PENTAGON ONLY PUT OUT IN 7 MIN. AND HOLE ONLY 15FT WIDE.
SILVERSTIEN ON AMER REBUILDS PBS MOVIE SAYING ON 911 AT 5PM HE ORDERED FDNY TO DEMO WTC # 7.
THE DEPT HAS NO DEMO TEAMS AND CONTROLLED DEMO TAKES WEEKS TO PLAN.
THE 911 COMM WAS A SHAME RUN BY PHIL ZELIKOW AND FEMA HAS NO EXPLANION ON HOW #7 CAME DOWN.
7 WAS NEVER HIT BY A PLANE OR OTHER TOWER FALLING ON IT. A SOLID 47 STORY BUILDING WITH A MASSIVE STEEL FRAME.
WHERE ARE ANY OF THE 4 BLK BOXES
FOR THE HYJACK PLANES.
WHY WAS ALL THE TAPES FROM THE SHERATION HOTEL, VIRG. TRANP. DEPT.,
GAS STAT. TAKEN BY FBI MINS AFTER PENTAGON STRIKE AND NEVER SHOWED TO ANYONE 5 YEARS LATER.
WE HAVE BEEN FOOLED BY A BAND OF TRAITORS WHO SHOULD ALL BE HUNG AT GRD ZERO FOR THE KILLING OF 3000 OF US.
DONT LET THEM GET AWAY ANY LONGER!!
Capt. America, take a pill! When is the last time you attended a classified briefing?
This WTC conspiracy stuff is awfully old.
ffg,
Therein lies the rub. No, I do not have a working definition of "torture" yet. The current official stance is "No we do not torture." But then when specifics are asked about that definition, the Attorney General sputters in confusion. So the definition used is critical.
And, yes, I let anyone comment.
This is pretty much off the top of my head - but it occurs that a working definition would be any duress that could result in long-term physical or mental damage.
How's that for the purpose of discussion?
As for letting anyone comment, that's a good idea. The marketplace of ideas and all.
Torture is two more years of Bush and his band of merry men.
So when Bush says "we do not torture" does that mean he is going to quit after canning his entire staff?!?!
By the way, my federal career ended with me joining AFGE (government employees union). I was one of only 30 people (out of close to 2,000) who was not intimidated by management. But since nobody else did the same, it was easy for them to drum me out.
Torture is two more years of Bush and his band of merry men.
Yes. Well. :) I suppose we could argue a case for sending him to Gitmo where he can rub the shoulders of female detainees without permission, eat with his mouth open and describe gnarly world situations as "a bunch of sh*t". Of course, the problem may be having some assurance that he would show up sober.
At any rate, it wouldn't be long before a rush of detainees stand up, wave their arms excitedly and yell, "I surrender! And I know secrets!"
(Thinking: it's a good thing this forum is at least somewhat anonymous.)
Post a Comment