[Vision2020] Nation of Laws
lfalen
lfalen at turbonet.com
Fri May 8 11:00:14 PDT 2009
I did not see your e-mail and do not know if that is so or not.
roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Gier, Nicholas" NGIER at uidaho.edu
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 22:40:36 -0700
To: "lfalen" lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Nation of Laws
> Hi Roger,
>
> Perhaps you missed my e-mail verifying that the attack on LA was thwarted BEFORE any torture was authorized. Your avoidance of both logic and facts continues to amaze me.
>
> Nick
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of lfalen
> Sent: Thu 5/7/2009 10:43 AM
> To: bear at moscow.com
> Cc: vision 2020
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Nation of Laws
>
> Bear
> Parts of this is correct. I would disagree with the embarrassed part. It is true that most of the major figures were Saudis.
> I am not a big fan of their government either. The terrorist came from everywhere(most were Saudi), but the Saudi government did not support them. I never said that past occurrences were a justification for the present or future. In fact I said just the opposite. I was just pointing out that Andreas was wrong when he said that it never occurred. I agree that any enhanced techniques should be used with caution and that "good cop" methods should be used first. But I still maintain that when gentle methods fail and it is thought that valuable information can be obtained by waterboarding that would save lives, it is justified. Of all the detainees at GIMO only three were watereboarded. Information was obtained from KSM that did overt an attack on Los Angles. For that reason I think that it was justified in this case. I would still say that it should be used selectively and only in severe cases. It should never be used as a matter of routine on all prisoners.I would agree tha!
t !
> brutal
> methods that cause bodily injure and inflect severe pain, such as pulling out fingernails or hanging them up by there genitals should never be used.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: bear at moscow.com
> Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 14:08:32 -0700
> To: "lfalen" lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Nation of Laws
>
> > Under American law, TORTURE is illegal PERIOD.
> >
> > The only reason torture was authorized and institutionalized by the
> > Bushites was THEY WERE EMBARRASSED! They were asleep at the switch and
> > wanted revenge, so they struck out at the weakest countries in the middle
> > east, NOT the ones that were actually involved! The 9/11 bombers were
> > Saudi Arabians, Bushite friends, they were not from Afghanistan or Iraq!
> > And what country do you think Osama Bin Laden is from? SAUDI ARABIA. Osama
> > bin Laden was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on 10 March 1957. His father
> > Muhammed Awad bin Laden was a wealthy businessman with close ties to the
> > Saudi royal family.
> >
> > And Great Britain NEVER institutionalized torture the way the Bushites
> > did, nor was it the POLICY of the US to torture during WW2. Did it happen,
> > I'm sure individual acts of torture were committed by all sides. And what
> > about genocide? OUR allies murdered some 25,000
> > Polish military officers, teachers and civil servants during the war.
> >
> > Now, depending on how far you want to go back, the American Indians, who
> > could be considered terrorists, tortured, and I'm sure the cavalry did
> > too, BUT again, it was never institutionalized or rationalized.
> >
> > THE big problem with institutionalizing it is, where do you stop? For
> > instance, IF it's ok to torture terrorists, why can't we torture
> > kidnappers, or murderers who's victims bodies have not yet been found?
> > Why not torture fraudulent investors until the show us were they hid the
> > money?
> >
> > VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> > > =======================================================
> > >
> >
> >
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list