You said it, it's not a very realistic scenario. More realistic -- we make thousands of enemies who all hate our guts for what we did to Uncle Ali.
Dana On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 01:11:39 -0800, Rob Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are in a contest of wills against an enemy whose brutality is boundless, > an enemy that will use any possible tactic, however vile, to gain advantage > over us. An enemy that is bent on our destruction. The morality of the > rendition enterprise is a question of choosing the lesser of two evils. Do > we allow a handful of potentially innocent people to be carried off and > interrogated (to put it nicely) by foreign governments, or do we allow our > enemies to use our morality and our laws against us? > > If Al Qaeda , etc. knew that its agents could be captured in the U.S. and > have no fear of anything other than jail, they would simply train all of > their people to never reveal anything, and we would be left with an > incredible disadvantage in the fight against the thugs and terror-mongers of > the world. This is not a criminal action. It is a war. These people do not > care about the Geneva Convention. They do not respect civilians, > journalists, or even doctors. There can be no treaty with them. There can be > no armistice with them. They must be destroyed, root and branch. > > I hate the moral choice, but look at it this way. If I was in a room with an > interrogator and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and I knew that, through the select > application of electrical current to Mohammed's body, the interrogator would > be able to extract information that would save the lives of thousands of > innocent people somewhere (anywhere) in the world, would I object? Would > you? > > Of course, such a hypothetical situation is black-and-white, people's lives > v. our own moral standards. Reality is never so clear-cut, but I am afraid > that before this is all over, we may be forced to make more desperate > choices like this one. > > Rob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 4:55 PM > Subject: Re: NPR Ombudsman On Media "Bias" > > > Seriously Sam, can you defend this stuff? > > > > Dana > > > > http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/11076647.htm > > > > Posted on Tue, Mar. 08, 2005 > > > > Gonzales defends transfers in terror cases > > > > By Mark Sherman > > > > Associated Press > > > > > > WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said yesterday that > > before the United States hands over terror suspects to foreign > > governments, it receives assurances they won't be tortured. He > > acknowledged that once a transfer occurs, the United States has little > > control. > > > > The Bush administration's program to send foreigners to other > > countries - known as "extraordinary rendition" - has been denounced by > > human-rights advocates. They say it amounts to outsourcing torture to > > elicit information that could not be obtained legally in America. > > > > Gonzales defended the program and reiterated that the Bush > > administration did not condone torture. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:149897 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
