Text 10312, 128 rader
Skriven 2009-03-17 07:09:26 av JOHN FITZGERALD (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av DAN CEPPA
Ärende: WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
==========================
-



DC>  As it strands, prisoners under US control
DC>  have been tortured to death.
  
JF>  I am sure there is a freak example you can dredge up and 
JF>  parade down main street as if it were the rule, 
JF>  somewhere out there.
  
DC>  the problem you have is that they are 
DC>  not "freak examples". 
 
JF>  If they are not freak examples then you 'should' be able to cite 
JF>  and confirm several, but since the results and methods of actual 
JF>  interrogations are classified all you have is hand-me-down spin... 
 
DC>  why?  you will only ignore it, as you have 
DC>  all other facts placed before you.

JF>  "Facts"??  You have only offered empty claims, and again, when asked
JF>  to back up your claim, you fold.    And I have addressed everything 
JF>  you've put on the table, and even had to explain to you what happens 
JF>  when someone actually drowns.  ie.NOT a heart attack.

DC>  Open your eyes, John:  
DC>  Deaths in Custody: 108 People Have Died in U.S. 
DC>  * The U.S.  government has acknowledged 28 confirmed 
DC>  or suspected homicides of detainees in U.S. custody ...
DC>  ...

JF>  Interesting numbers.  Too bad there is nothing there that says how
JF>  they died.  Above you claim prisoners have been tortured to death.

DC>  It says "homicides"  

   Follow the thread back to the part I had to reintroduce in this
message.  You did in fact say "...prisoners under US control have been 
tortured to death."  You went from 'tortured to death' to the more general,
and vague, term 'deaths in custody'.

  Now, as per your first claim, can you produce one news article covering 
a story where an individual has been convicted of murder for torturing 
someone to death?  Or how about an article that just covers "tortured to
death", never mind the conviction part, for now.  You did speak of "facts".
Oaky, where are you getting your 'facts' from, Dan?




JF>  You once mentioned a heart attack from waterboarding,
JF>  but this, if JF> true, was an accident, not a 
JF>  deliberate effort to kill the individual.

DC>   If someone puts a gun to your head to scare you and it 
DC>   goes off and kills you, is the person inocent because 
DC>   it was an accident?  

  Under those circumstances the person wouldn't be guilty of murder.  
Hope this doesn't disappoint you.



DC>   Get real.  The person waterboarded was put in life 
DC>   keopardy and died because of that.  That'd murder. 


  Nope, manslaughter at best.  Again hope this doesn't disappoint you
as it seems you have your heart set on finding these sorts of things.  

DC>   the real why is why you defend a war 
DC>   criminal with such vigor.  

JF>   Sorry, the real why is why you would defend 
JF>   someone like Saddam.

DC>   There you go again.  I have never defended him.  

JF>   You haven't gone around and said he was a swell guy, okay, but
JF>   you do try to dismiss or deny everything this individual was 
JF>   up to in the years leading up to the '03 invasion.  

DC>   Who's dismissed anything on him?   

   You have, just as you do again, below, when you say "So, they were
wrong"
in response to all the things Clinton's people said about Saddam for
eight years. 



DC>   You really need to stop putting words 
DC>   into other's mouths.

    You really need to stop reading what is not there.  Lighten up.


JF>   And all the things Clinton's  people reported on about 
JF>   him and his affairs are dismissed out right buy most Democrats.
JF>   Heck, Bob Klahn once said Clinton's people, for eight years, 
JF>   were "all wrong" about Saddam.  Pew!

DC>   So, they were wrong.

    Another sweeping dismissal.  So I guess the couple of times Saddam 
destroyed some of his WMD it was really just bug spray and fertilizer he 
was disposing of.  And when Clinton sent cruise missile into Baghdad, 
without a declaration of war, it was because Saddam was not the threat to 
security in the region everyone was claiming he was.  Are you saying the 
entire Clinton administration and all of their intel' people were just a 
bunch of clueless and total idiots, over and over, for eight years??



DC>   Where does Bob say that Saddam was a saint? 
DC>   Because what you did was try to put words
DC>   in his mouth. 

   "A saint"??  Where did I say he said that?   You accuse me of putting 
words in ones mouth and in the same breath you come off with this??


---
 *   *

 
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)