Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

I dunno. Somewhere a long the way... So, your saying that we COULD be just as safe if we DIDN'T torture anybody, is that what you're saying????

Cause that's all I'M sayin.

excon

---

And I'm saying that neither you nor I are in a position to question it.

I am also saying that it would SEEM that if we hadn't used EITs, there would have been 10 flights out of London that would have been either blown up or used as missiles to attack other buildings, and the Brooklyn Bridge authorities would be in perpetual discussions on what type of memorial should be put in place of the rubble that is left.

I believe that ALL the actions taken by the Bush administration served to protect us. You seem to believe we should have cherry-picked which ones we used... and if you are wrong, well, oops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I believe that ALL the actions taken by the Bush administration served to protect us. You seem to believe we should have cherry-picked which ones we used... and if you are wrong, well, oops.

---

Hello again, El:

There's an editorial in the NY Times today, written by Ali H. Soufan, who was an F.B.I. special agent from 1997 to 2005, who ACTUALLY was the guy who QUESTIONED the detainees.. He says something entirely different than you do. Of course, I'm sure you'd rather believe vice than a guy who had his boots on the ground.

But, I didn't post this for YOUR benefit. You're too closed minded to get it, and you probably won't even read the editorial. That's cool. Fortunately for the world, most of the readers here aren't like you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/op...html?th&emc=th

excon

Thanks for posting Ex. Pretty compelling article!!

Update . Holder has decided that his investigation into the already-investigated detainee abuse cases is narrowing and winding down.

Quote:

---

Before his decision to reopen the cases, Holder did not read detailed memos that prosecutors drafted and placed in files to explain their decision to decline prosecutions. That issue has rankled GOP lawmakers and some career lawyers in the Justice Department, who question whether Holder's order was made based on the facts or on his political instincts.

---

Inquiry Into CIA Practices Narrows - washingtonpost.com

Hello tom:

There's no question, that the right wing doesn't want the CIA prosecuted for crimes because they want to ensure the CIA is willing to act illegally in the future. The problem is, the next ILLEGAL act they do, just might NOT be in our interest, assuming torture IS in our interest... And, who's going to tell 'em to stop?

I don't know why the right wing law and order dudes don't get that, but they don't.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

There's no question, that the right wing doesn't want the CIA prosecuted for crimes because they want to ensure the CIA is willing to act illegally in the future. The problem is, the next ILLEGAL act they do, just might NOT be in our interest, assuming torture IS in our interest... And, who's gonna tell 'em to stop?

I dunno why the right wing law and order dudes don't get that, but they don't.

excon

---

You're still stuck on it being torture... which it ain't.

You're still stuck on their actions being illegal... which they ain't.

You're still stuck on the POWs being legally no different from criminals... which they are.

And you're still stuck on starting investigations... when such investigations have already been completed with no illegal activity found.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

You got me figured out. What took you so long?

excon