Grassy Knoll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-08-11 02:28 PM
Original message |
| WH Security Advisor Shoots Down Babbling Chris Wallace |
dencol
(297 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-08-11 02:40 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Could have done much better. |
|
OBL posed a direct threat as an armed man in a "battle." Those we interrogate are unarmed and pose no threat to us; that's why we cannot use force as a civilized society. This is so obvious, but the security advisor couldn't even articulate this fact.
|
MidwestTransplant
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-08-11 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
There is a difference between offing a guy in a military operation vs. torturing a handcuffed prisoner.
|
KurtNYC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-08-11 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 7. I thought he did fine. it was a barrage of stupid, question statements |
|
some of which were not based on facts at all. The guys at Fox have a tough job these days.
|
Honeycombe8
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-08-11 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 8. Yeah. It was a pretty weak answer. But he did answer it. It's because one has been captured |
|
and poses no threat at the time, and interrogation techniques are for the purpose of getting information, not doling out justice. OBL was killed as part of a military action, and the main purposes were to dole out justice, get rid of a mass murderer as expeditiously as possible, WHILE ENSURING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THAT THE SEALS DIDN'T GET HURT OR KILLED, and were able to get out asap.
Two totally different scenarios for different purposes.
|
Trajan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-08-11 02:41 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. Typical dishonest banter from a media figure .... |
|
Chris Wallace was using a false analogy ... it was completely fallacious ....
I could explain the difference, but I dont have to .... Suffice to say 'Chris Wallace ? .... FUCK YOU !'
|
emulatorloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-08-11 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 4. Notice how Wallace twisted his words to "Against our values to get info from KSM:" |
|
No Chris-tool, against our value to torture.
|
The Wizard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-08-11 04:16 PM
Response to Original message |
|
bad information that wastes resources. If the interrogator is seeking a desired answer torture works. If valuable information is needed torture is not a good technique. Republicans are still trying to justify Bush cartel war crimes.
|
Marnie
(706 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-08-11 06:47 PM
Response to Original message |
| 6. There is a huge difference in torturning a captive |
|
who is defenseless, and who is being repeatedly treated in a manner to create suffering in a non combat setting,and firing on an enemy in a military confrontation when the individual(s) being fired on could reasonably be expected to be combatants and be armed and capable of firing back.
Generally POW's are not combatants, they cannot possibly be armed, they have been rendered virtually harmless. POW's are not repeatedly shot just to make them suffer, that would indeed be torture.
Wallace's question was vastly ignorant and the response missed the oportunity to show Wallace up as a total ignoramus.
|
JDPriestly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-08-11 10:12 PM
Response to Original message |
| 9. Too timid. Too apologetic about torture. |
|
Edited on Sun May-08-11 10:14 PM by JDPriestly
Torture of a prisoner is quite different from killing a person during a military action in a location that is only momentarily under your control and in which hostile parties might attack entering troops.
A person who is tortured is completely under your control. Torture is unnecessary in order to subdue or control the person. It is therefore an abuse of power -- a bully technique.
When you send a team of Seals into a country without the open approval and perhaps even without the acquiescence of the government of that country, and
when, on top of that, the location that the Seals are entering is a few blocks from a major military installation in that country, you do not have control.
Your target is not subdued. Killing the person you are seeking is to be expected if there is strong evidence to suggest that the person might respond violently. In this case, killing the person is a military action, not an abuse of power or a bully technique.
Fox News does not plug the brightest bulbs into its shows.
|
Very_Boring_Name
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-09-11 02:33 AM
Response to Original message |
| 10. That was dissapointingly weak |
|
The correct response would have been that OBL was a direct threat to the SEALS at the time. Captive prisoners are threats to nobody (except perhaps themselves).
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Feb 19th 2026, 08:53 AM
Response to Original message |