Michael's Dispatches

Treatment of Prisoners

27 Comments

20 March 2009

Before I lived in Germany and Poland for about six years, the Army taught me German and some Polish.  And so there were countless conversations with older Germans and Poles, and I heard earfuls of stories.  The older Germans were very respectful toward our "Greatest Generation," but pretty much hated the Russians because of their brutality.  The theme nearly always drifted to the very humane treatment we afforded German prisoners, while the Russians killed them off.  We even had German prisoners working on farms, and after the war, many Germans returned and married American women!  But the Poles didn't like the Germans or the Russians because of the very same reasons.  They had been mistreated, but the Poles have great respect for America because we treated them well.  Americans are extremely welcome in Poland, but that place sure is cold.

It is extremely heartening that so many soldiers have reached out to me privately about the torture issue.  Most do not seem to want to enter the fray publicly, but most also seem to share the same aversion to maltreatment of prisoners.  Not because any of us are softhearted about the enemy; I'll likely see dozens more enemy killed this year and I never feel bad for al Qaeda or Taliban.  They chose to fight.  They chose to attack us or help attack us on 9/11 and at other times.

Please see this article from a military professional from our Greatest Generation. He dealt with a fanatical country that sneak attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and who used suicide attackers.  And we won.



 

Say something here...
You are a guest ( Sign Up ? )
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    John Butchko · 9 years ago
    I agree that the humane treatment of prisioners should be our national policy, but individuals who do not follow the rules of war and do not fight as combatants under the Geneva Convention do not have the rights conveyed by that Convention. As long as we do not torture as a sadistic policy, as did the Russians and the Nazis, and do so to obtain information that saves lives, I do not oppose the "torture" authorized by the Bush Administration as long as there is no long-lasting physical injury.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    michael t. egan · 9 years ago
    michael, your comments about torture are interesting, + in my opinion are refective of a person with no sense of history, + are bolstered by soldiers who do not want to "go public".
    are you aware of the book "flyboys"?
    are you aware of the brutal toture / murder of our c.i.a. agent in lebanon during the reagan administration?
    the united states of america is obliged to use whatever means necessary to defend the innocent citizens of this country.
    v/r..........mikee
  • This commment is unpublished.
    JamesD · 9 years ago
    I do no advocate wholesale abuse or torture in any way shape or form. That will only serve to create more foes. People should be treated as human beings. That said, in certain circumstances there must be the option of stepping up the pressure. This I would withhold for only the most extreme cases where information was needed to advert something (being present or future threats). It should be strictly regulated to make sure these methods donƒ??t spread to the general detainee population (as it did at Abu Graib), but the options must still be there. The people who this would be reserved for I would think are already so committed to the fight against America (or the West) that I doubt being pressured (i.e. tortured) would increase their hatred. One could say, ok, but what about our perception in the wider world? Wonƒ??t that suffer? Maybe it will. But I would argue less so than when American Close Air Support destroys a compound in Afghanistan and kills innocent men, women and children (along with armed combatants). If we can accept the terrible death of innocents in the pursuit of military necessity, why is it that we cannot accept the harsh interrogation (once again, torture) of known enemies?
  • This commment is unpublished.
    JamesD · 9 years ago
    The points Maj. Moran lays out in this article make perfect sense when dealing with captured enemies. Treating them as human beings will get you a lot farther than treating them like dogs. This point can be further applied to the point you made about Germans being respectful towards Americans of the "Greatest Generation". We (the Allies) were the much gentler occupying force and oversaw the rebuilding of Germany and the establishment of a free Western Democracy. The Russians stripped Eastern Germany of industrial equipment and man power, not to mention subjecting them to 44 years of communist rule. The Western way was clearly the more favorable of the two options. This is all fine and dandy, if one ignores the years of allied bombings against German cities and the revenge killings that took place after the German surrender. The argument is made that American daylight bombing was aimed at legitimate military targets within urban areas. The British on the other hand were fully committed to terror bombing these same urban centers in an attempt to break the will of their enemy. American bombers were not uninvolved in the terror campaign, the bombing of Dresden being the most well known example. After the war was over, war criminals were legally and extra-legally executed. The death and terror that the western allies brought to Germany's door step was nothing compared to what the Soviets perpetrated, but it is not as if the West treated Germany with kid gloves. What I draw from this little history lesson is that when the fighting stops, do all that you can to rebuild and help out your former enemies, for they are no longer your enemy. As Maj. Moran says, "I consider a prisoner... as out of the war, out of the picture, and thus, in a way, not an enemy... get the prisoner to a safe place, where even he knows there is no hope of escape, that it is all over." This logic that applied during WW2 does not apply to our current fight.
    The nature of the threat and the nature of our global legal system preclude the option of taking the enemy "out of the war". Former Gitmo detainees blowing themselves up in Iraq or the "revolving door" policy for detainees in the same country lend credence to this point. Speaking the co-author of On Point II (Transition to the New Campaign: The US Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom) at a presentation he gave I asked him about how members of the military he interviewed felt about detainee operations in Iraq. He said he had seen frustration expressed about the inability to hold suspects for as long as they desired. And that as long as they kept their mouth shut, there was a good chance they would be out soon. A friend of mine from when I was a child who did a tour in the Anbar province during 2006 expressed a similar frustration, that they would continually detain the same guys to no effect. If capture, arrest, detainment, etc. does not take the ƒ??enemyƒ? out of the fight, then following a logical path, they are still the enemy. Therefore, those that still cling to their cause, the ƒ??hard coreƒ?, should be treated as they are. Enemies, even in captivity.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    SGT D · 9 years ago
    I am an American soldier. I will never torture an enemy prisoner, or by my inaction allow a prisoner in my care to be tortured.

    In WWII both the Germans and the Japanese tortured US and allied servicemen that they held as POWs. THEY did, but WE did not. I don't know how one can make the argument that because our enemies are inhumane we should also become inhumane.

    In addition to being an American soldier, I am also the father of two servicemen - one active duty Army and one active duty Air Force. I know that if they are captured by al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or any of a myriad of fanatical enemies they would most assuredly be tortured before their heads would be sawed off in front of a camera. But knowing that still doesn't make me want to torture enemy prisoners. It only goes to show yet again the difference between "us and them".

    Thousands of enemy soldiers willingly surrendered to US and Coalition forces after relentless bombing. I wonder how many of them would have just decided to fight to the death if they believed that to surrender would only deliver them into the hands of torturers. Throughout the 20th century, the United States of America has stood for moral strength and conviction with compassion. As a society, we abhor the thought of cruelty against those who are unable to defend themselves. Such is the lot of an enemy prisoner. He is no longer a threat, and is no longer capable of defending himself.

    And lest anyone think that compassion makes me a weak soldier, allow me to point out that I have earned my Combat Action Badge the hard way. I have faced the enemy in close combat and with my fellow soldiers have permanently removed that enemy from the fight. I make absolutely no apologies for this, and am proud of the fact that I violently took out evil men. But had those men survived contact with my Platoon, I would have removed all weapons from them and placed them in my protective custody until I was able to turn them over to higher authorities.

    I am an American Soldier. Part of my creed states that I am disciplined and I am a professional. That same creed ends with the words, "I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life." I am an American Soldier, and I DO NOT torture enemy prisoners.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    love this country · 9 years ago
    [I agree that the humane treatment of prisioners should be our national policy, but individuals who do not follow the rules of war and do not fight as combatants under the Geneva Convention do not have the rights conveyed by that Convention. As long as we do not torture as a sadistic policy, as did the Russians and the Nazis, and do so to obtain information that saves lives, I do not oppose the "torture" authorized by the Bush Administration as long as there is no long-lasting physical injury.] John Butchko.

    I agree completely, John. Nice job of summing it all up.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Bill Brent · 9 years ago
    It is easy to obfuscate the issue of torture by talking about the treatment of the general population of prisoners. Those of us who advocate doing whatever it takes to protect the lives of American citizens - be they civilians or soldiers - are NOT advocating treating the general prisoner population like the Japanese, Germans, and Russians did. So that's a straw man.

    What we're saying is that, in an age of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction, there are situations in which getting actionable intelligence in order to prevent massive casualties among innocent Americans may require the harshest treatment imaginable. And that such treatment in this context is not only necessary but moral. Conversely, it is the height of immorality to, for example, sacrifice the entire population of Chicago for the sake of an anti-torture policy when you have captured the terrorist cell leader who has just killed hundreds of thousands in New York City.

    Humane treatment of the general prisoner population should always be official US government policy. But that policy should also state, clearly and unequivocally, that the United States government will do whatever it takes to protect its citizens; and that the welfare of American citizens will always come before the welfare of prisoners.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Bill Brent · 9 years ago
    It is easy to obfuscate the issue of torture by talking about the treatment of the general population of prisoners. Those of us who advocate doing whatever it takes to protect the lives of American citizens - be they civilians or soldiers - are NOT advocating treating the general prisoner population like the Japanese, Germans, and Russians did. So that's a straw man.

    What we're saying is that, in an age of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction, there are situations in which getting actionable intelligence in order to prevent massive casualties among innocent Americans may require the harshest treatment imaginable. And that such treatment in this context is not only necessary but moral. Conversely, it is the height of immorality to, for example, sacrifice the entire population of Chicago for the sake of an anti-torture policy when you have captured the terrorist cell leader who has just killed hundreds of thousands in New York City.

    Humane treatment of the general prisoner population should always be official US government policy. But that policy should also state, clearly and unequivocally, that the United States government will do whatever it takes to protect its citizens; and that the welfare of American citizens will always come before the welfare of prisoners.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    ramsis · 9 years ago
    i never understood why, nearing the end of the war when all was certainly lost, why germany didn't completely abandon the western front and and throw everything they had at holding the russians back until the west could get to berlin first. they could have saved tens of thousands from russian gulags and firing squads. We must also understand that alot of russian brutality was in response to the brutality the people of russia suffered under the german invasion. many originally greeted the germans as liberators from stalin but quickly found out they were out of the pot and into the fire.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Richard Morse · 9 years ago
    The debate on torture has taken a turn somewhere.
    The first turn is about POWs. Everyone is against torturing a POW, including me. The rules of war demand humane treatment.

    The second turn is about Terrorists. That's where the debate should focus. Is a terrorist a POW? I think NOT.......that's what makes him a
    terrorist. You play terrorist. You pay the price. It is that simple for me.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Christopher Renner · 9 years ago
    Michael, first off let me say I appreciate beyond words the amount of effort you put forth to tell the plain truth about Iraq and now AfPak.

    That being said, I don't understand what point you're trying to get across about "torture" as conducted by the United States. Maj. Moran, in the document you link to in this post, discusses what will work to gain information from the ordinary soldier, sailor, or airman EPW.
    He doesn't specifically address, say, the most appropriate treatment for a high-ranking officer or a Kempeitai fanatic - which would be much more comparable to the current debate.

    As far as goes the Iraqi Sunnis in Ramadi who shot at/detonated IEDs towards the unit I was deployed with 4 years ago, had they been captured sincerity and good treatment would be in order.

    Foreign would-be suicide bombers, or AQ leaders such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, are much tougher to justify coddling. Maybe there exists an interrogator who can get information out of them that way - but you still haven't convinced me that waterboarding isn't a good alternative, or that the psychological damage inflicted on such fanatics should be a great concern for the US government.

    I think also that you're missing an important distinction between having an unwritten policy of no torture on grounds of effectiveness, and publicizing such a policy or justifying it on moral grounds. The former would help our defense whereas the latter would manifest weakness to our enemies.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Erik L. · 9 years ago
    SGT D said it beautifully below. Like him, I am a patriot who loves the principles and ideals that our country was founded on. I have seen evil, inhumanity, darkness in all corners of the globe. For those that have seen what the real world is like out there, America is the light against that darkness. This country is the only place on earth where one enjoys such sweeping personal liberties and freedoms. To now be viewed as no better than any petty dictatorship in the last 100 years hurts deeply. I know that "we", as a country, are better than this, we just need to get past our preoccupation with dick size and false bravado.

    This is an intelligence-intensive war we are in. The nature of our enemy dictates that, overall, the most reliable source of intelligence is people themselves. We need to be able to talk to them, and we need them to want to give us truthful information. Maintaining the moral highground goes a long way towards setting those condition. Torture on the other hand simply validates the enemy's own recruiting propaganda, and thus makes it harder for us on the battlefield. Additionally, it taints all the subsequent information from any sort of criminal proceeding, which is ultimately where you want these guys to end up. Now, torture works wonders if all you are looking for is a false confession for some trumped up kangaroo court in which guilt is already a foregone conclusion. But if you want actionable intelligence, meaning intelligence good enough to put us through the "right" door, for the "right" guy, at the "right" time, that only comes from folks who aren't scared shitless that they'll be hooked up to alligator clips and a car battery at any time.

    Some folks are missing the long-term implications from all this too. Generations from now, when my great-grandchildren are faithfully serving their country, I want our legacy to them to be a world with multiple countries that love what America did for them. My grandfather and his generation did it for us in Europe and Asia and it would be a damn shame if my generations legacy around the world is that we're no better than any other dictatorship. It didn't require brutality then, and it doesn't now.

    Anyways, that's my 2 cents

    Eriik
  • This commment is unpublished.
    alexa kim · 9 years ago
    Sorry Michael, nice try, but I'm not falling for it. Prisoner maltreatment is not the same as torturing a high value enemy in order to extract information to save lives.

    I repeat, forcing an enemy to give up info to save the lives of those we love is not only warranted, it is REQUIRED.

    Let me say it again: I believe we must and always should be considered dangerous to our enemies. I want them to be scared of me.

    Now, can we get back to having a serious discussion about what else we can do to get info out of our enemies in order to save the lives of those we love?
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Steve Weiss · 9 years ago
    Michael, please start listening to your readers. You keep thinking the debate is about abusing civilians or POW's. No one is advocating that. What people are saying is that we are dealing with a different sort of enemy, one that targets civilians, and there may be time when we are faced with a difficult choice.

    You are debating an argument that no one is making.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Sue Miller · 9 years ago
    Your note and article re-confirmed what my moral compass has been screaming for years. Those who condone torture and/or mistreatment in the name of patriotism have forgotten what it means to live in a free society. The ultimate goal of a civilized society, in my opinion, is to treat others as we would want to be treated. It appears we have lost this moral high ground over the past few years.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    michel menza · 9 years ago
    Mike,

    You are a good guy, no doubt. Buttt.... There is a big difference between fanatical Islamo operatives and the German and Polish people encountered in WWII. Americans that I have always known (Via Army, Marine Corps, Air Force associations) have always been the good guys and deplore the engagement of gratuitous sadism towards enemy combatants. But what is called "torture" nowadays can best be described as a more efficient means of communication in exigent circumstances. Circumstances that includes saving a life from the activities of these brainwashed madrassas graduates.

    M
  • This commment is unpublished.
    izmir web tasarŽñm · 9 years ago
    I admire to your writing
  • This commment is unpublished.
    JamesD · 9 years ago
    The "moral high ground" is subjective. Going back to the the subject of WW2, sure, the western allies were on a higher moral high when compared to the Nazis. BUT we (western allies) still bombed civilian targets and killed at the very least tens of thousands of civilians in the process. Towards the end of the war German villages were leveled with artillery fire if advancing allied troops encountered any resistance. Is terror bombing not amoral? Does shelling villages where you know civilians are hiding not contain at least some moral ambiguity? In the Pacific, the Japanese were brutal to the people in the areas that they conquered. What they did in China rivals the brutality of the Holocaust. But does that make the firebombing of Japanese cities by the XXI Bomber Command or the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima or Nagasaki any less amoral? There are stories of children being sucked out of their parents arms by the hurricane force winds generated by the massive whirling firestorm at the center of Tokyo during the raid on the night of March 9-10. Supposedly 100,000 people died during this one raid. Tokyo was literally burned to the ground. This was not some far off barbaric time, it was 65 years ago. The ideals of America are supreme and should always be strived for, yet one cannot make important policy decisions based solely on ideals. Other options must be weighed. America must do what is necessary to achieve victory. Thucydides saw this trend towards necessity in writing his History of the Peloponnesian War and said "but war...is a hard master and tends to assimilate men's character to their conditions". Whether we like it or not, America is at war and must act accordingly.

    I end on a William T. Sherman quote. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Scott Dudley, CDR, · 9 years ago
    No question that engagement with the enemy should be as fierce and violent as possible. The topic is, however, treatment of prisoners, out of combat and in our control. As such, Dresden and Hiroshima are irrelevant.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Mike Moore · 9 years ago
    When we first went into Iraq, I religiously read posts by "Chief Wiggles", an Interrogator. My wife and I sent parcels of supplies (school supplies and toys) to Chief
    Wiggles. He commented frequently that his approach was to make friends with the prisoners he was interogating. He was interrogating 5 Generals , and tried unsuccessfully to get them
    back into the new iraq Army. All that he said made sense. The decisions passed down to him to deal with these generals was nonsense; he never posted that, but it was obvious.
    He was a great man.
    Good Luck!
  • This commment is unpublished.
    JamesD · 9 years ago
    The discussion is the treatment of prisoners yes, but a major factor in the argument against torture is maintaining the the moral high ground or upholding American values. My point is that the moral high ground is subjective first, and second, the maintenance of American values doesn't hold up in the historical spotlight. Also, I tried to make a point in an earlier post that due to the nature of the fight and the current international legal system, just because someone was captured doesn't necessarily mean they are out of the fight. Mr. Yon wrote about the "revolving door" policy of detainment in Iraq and the current talk of the the release of Gitmo detainees lends credence to this. If one accepts that America cannot hold detainees forever, that some of these detainees are "hardcore" and they will return to the fight upon their release, then it is not too far of a leap to believe that these hardcore elements are still in the fight. Albeit on "pause" for the time being. If important information can be gleaned from these hardcore elements that has the potential the save lives, why not use whatever means necessary to get it? How is it any different from, say, an Apache gunner being ordered to shoot fleeing Taliban in Afghanistan? Those men are in that instant disengaged from the battle, if they are running for their lives, then they present no immediate danger to anyone. They may present a danger in 10 minutes or 10 weeks, but at that moment they don't. The rational behind the orders is that they can't be allowed to escape, even if they are running away and throw down their weapons they are still "in the fight". If we can rationalize killing fleeing men to potentially save lives in the future, why can't we rationalize torturing in very specific cases to save lives? I see no difference between those men and the hardcore elements in custody, except that those poor SOBs being blown apart by 30mm rounds weren't given a chance to repent. The guys in custody were given a chance and they squandered it.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Scott Dudley, CDR, · 9 years ago
    If they are retreating from battle, they are targets. If they are captured and under our control, they are prisoners. There is a fairly comprehensive discussion of torture under the topic of Water Board. There is evidence that torture is not effective compared to other methods of interrogation. WRT torture, there are only "feelings" that it works. No actual evidence. KSM confessed to anything and everything. Even falsely claimed to have personally beheaded Daniel Perle. Under torture, you get what you want, not what you need..at least that is my understanding.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    senorlechero · 9 years ago
    Michael. You are so far out in left field on "torture". Now you are comparing Islamic terrorist homicide bombers with the Japanese Kamikase? The Kamikase killed himself in an effort to kill his enemy. That is WAY different from killing innocent civilians in order to create terror.

    Harsh interogation of terrorists to save civilians is NOT torture. Waterboarding them is not torture. Keeping them awake is not torture. Keeping them cold is not torture. Playing music for them is not torture. Any and all of those techniques should be used to gain information that will save civilian lives.

    But in your world view it's better to put a bullet in their brains on the field of battle, allow their terror plots to continue forward, civilians to die, and maintain your honor? I don't think so.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Scott Dudley · 9 years ago
    Actually, Mr. Yon did not compare islamic terrorists to Japanese suicide bombers. If you want to make stuff up to make your point, that's on you. And, of course you don't know his world view so make that up too. Fascinating approach to an intelligent discussion.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    senorlechero · 9 years ago
    "He dealt with a fanatical country that sneak attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and who used suicide attackers. And we won"

    So what do you suppose Mr. Yon is refering to in this comment? It was pretty clear to me that since he had refered (many times actually) to the US "torturing" islamic terrorists that the comment above was a comparison between the "suicide attackers" (japs) and the "homicide bombers" (islamic terrorists).

    You are free to think differently, but it's pretty hard to make any sense of Yon's post with any other understanding.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Eloise · 9 years ago
    There is never a valid excuse for the mistreatemnt of a prisoner, however horrible and inhumane that prisoner may be. Our nation has been set apart in its way of dealing with people, even its enemies. It is the acknowledgement of "human beings" that have caused our nation to treat people as "people," in spite of the evil.
    However, there is a difference between the maltreatment of prisoners and the "torture" method to extract information from the enemy. Recently, after a debate in the White House, memos of the Bush administration describing "torture" methods for interrogating Al Qaeda "suspects" and such were released. Some, such as the human rights activists, have suggested that those that used "torture tactics" be prosecuted.

    "This is a time for reflection, not retribution," Obama said. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ieY7oDaxYqxjoJCpy24n5QxSsKnw.

    After the 2001 attack, Bush's administration allowed for such tactics as forced nudity, waterboarding and sleep depravation. In their defense it was stated that the tecnhiques did not equal torture since they did not inflict long term physical or mental pain. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/17/bush-torture-memos-obama-mukasey.
    However, it must also be noted that Bush later changed his policy in agreement with Senator John McCain which called for a law banning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10480690/.

    The Obama administration has said they will not use any of these techniques.

    Many American soldiers have been tried and convicted for mistreating prisoners. In 2006 eleven soldiers were convicted of crimes related to detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/bal-ghraib,1,2501080.story.
    Four other soldiers were also tried for other cruel acts, even among the Iraqi civilians. One of them was sentenced to 110 years in prison for his role in the rape and murder of a 14 year old Iraqi girl and her family. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6930845.stm.
    A U.S. army master seargent, the highest rank convicted of Iraqi deaths, was convicted because of the execution-style slayings of four bound and blindfolded Iraqi detainees. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-04-15-iraq-soldier_N.htm.

    Our nation has made mistakes but we are still striving to hold on to some of the historical values that have made our nation so great. Those who have acted in an inhumane manner have been tried and convicted, paying consequences for their evil actions. We are to hold each other accountable, even those fighting for our country and those in authority, in order to uphold some "values".
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Cpl. C · 8 years ago
    Canada has signed international agreements that make it illegal to pass over prisoners to countries where there are likely to be tortured. I'm a soldier, not a lawyer and it pains me to work alongside an "ally" that twists words to make it legal to torture human beings. Never mind labelling them HVTs, islamofascists, extremists, hi-ranking or low-ranking. Never mind calling it interrogation techniques. I will not, and neither will there ever occur within my presence acts that degrade the human dignity of another human being. And the bar starts at bullying not waterboarding. I don't do this for the other people's sake. I do it for my sake. And the end of this life I want to look in sons eyes and be proud for him to call me dad.

    You torture-lovers don't think that "what you say", "what you think" and "what you do" shape who you become? It's a strange thing in life but what they say is true: "When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back in you." If you fight the enemy by his rules you will become that enemy. And to win - you have to become better at his game. What are you trying to do? Compete with al-Qaeda in interrogation? You're bound to lose. You just don't want to play that game - because if you win, you lose much more that a war in Afghanistan or Iraq or Terror or whatever your next war is.

    I thank god that Sgt. D's message resonates with the overwhelming majority of the US army - otherwise it would be an impossibility for me to call the US an "ally" - since we don't share the same values.

    P.S. a note on preventing a WMD attack through intel obtained from harsh interrogation - as technology progresses WMD technology will be more readily available. The theme is not to try to stop such an attack by increasingly drastic measures - but not make yourself into a target. Torturing will surely incite strong emotions among desperate people.

Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated.  Recurring and one-time gifts are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.

supp

supp

subscribe

My BitCoin QR Code

This is for use with BitCoin apps:

189

You can now help support the next dispatch with bitcoins:

Donate Bitcoins