Us DFHs don't know nothing about brooms! That's the 'D' in DFH.

Hope you have a fine 4th, you & all the other great posters here.

As long as this stays up for discussion, the more you (and us) succeed. Good.

O/T- I have begun a painting that I wanted to present on National Torture remembrance day, but I got busy. Here is a detail and I'll let you guess where I'm going with this (link@sig). I'll show the full painting when done.

but let's start calling it National "Pandering" Radio.

;~)

"propaganda" would be more appropriate.

This is really getting embarrassing. Its like a child who knows they're wrong but has made such an effort to defend herself that there's no turning back now. She has to turn to personal attacks by calling it "diatribe" because she knows she's dead in the water on the real issue. Its almost excruciating to hear her defend this.

Also you see that those who do certain evils are deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as they sit on death row and undergo execution. (Even if you reject capital punishment it is still law in many states)

Has anyone here objected to incarcerating people who break the law when those people have been afforded due process as is required by our Constitution? If so, I am not aware of it. Do you have cites?

Now, I am in possession of an individual who planted an IED that killed 3 GIs (hypothetcal).

Your contention is to bring said individual back to the US for trial while the IED maker continues to make his toys and kill others?

Should he be interrogated before or after being mirandized?

He should be mirandized only if it is our intention to bring him back here for prosecution. If not, he should be held as a Prisoner of War and afforded the rights and priviledges of a POW under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. One of those rights, is to be told why he is being held and offered an opportunity present evidence that he is NOT guilty of doing what he is charged with (in this case, engaging in war against the US or its allies).

Did said individual commit a federal crime or a state crime based on the states of origin of the victims?

You don't give enough information to properly make that judgement. From the information you give, he should not be charged with any crime. It isn't a crime to be on the other side of a war with the United States, is it?

For instance, was he a member of an organized resistance movement and a citizen of the country in which the act took place? If so, he has not broken any law and should not be tried at all. Please don't attempt to give me that lame bullshit about wearing uniforms or not wearing uniforms. Most of our Special Forces in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) don't openly wear U.S. military uniforms and somehow, I doubt if you would not consider them as legitimate combatants in a war so please spare us the horseshit.

Should he be tried in the US or in the land where the crime took place.

What crime?

Here's another thought, in a declared war, is the killing of the enemy a crime for either side? Maybe not!

So if said individual committed no crime when he killed my three buddies with the IED - then I will commit no crime if I kill said individual since he is the enemy.

To a point, that's correct. The point where it becomes a crime is when the person is no longer a combatant but is a prisoner or is in the process of surrendering and becoming a prisoner. If you kill (or mistreat him) after he is a prisoner, you are engaging in a war crime. That's really not a difficult concept to understand, is it?

In a way that is strange to comprehend, the information my enemy possesses gives me pause on the battlefield. Should I spare his life for the intel or just kill him now?

Once he's a prisoner, you have no choice in the matter if you wish to obey the law.

These are questions that haunt me.

Why do I think you are stretching the truth when you say this?

-- Cousin J

Sorry to disappoint you Kid, but your post has an error:

"Terrorists are a reasonably new and heretofore unprecedented phenomena (circa 2001)"

One of Jesus' disciples was a terrorist.

It's clear from the reaction to my posting, that NPR's policy on the use of the word "torture" is one NPR's audience feels strongly about.

I think she's fairly oblivious to what the real concern is amongst those who have complained. It's not so much of an outright ban of the word "torture." It's about substituting it with "enhanced interrogation techniques" whenever it involves the Bush administration. What's particularly upsetting about it is that, for a lot of people I know who used to enjoy NPR specifically because it wasn't inclined to just repeat Whitehouse talking point, they are now doing just that and the ombudsman who is supposed to be on our side doesn't seem to care. In fact, she goes as far as to say it's the right thing to do.

But I am shilling for strong, credible journalism that is as objective as humanly possible. I am shilling for NPR to practice journalism based on putting out reliable information, to the best of its ability -- without taking sides -- so the public can make its own informed decisions.

To put it simply, due to the complete ignorance in this statement, she should be fired. Journalism can report on facts without it being biased. It is a fact that numerous techniques, including "water torture," that the US implemented against detainees is considered torture. There's legal precedent on that both domestically and internationally. If she were actually "shilling for NPR to practice journalism based on putting out reliable information, to the best of its ability -- without taking sides -- so the public can make its own informed decisions," then she'd be doing the exact opposite. Simply by advocating for the use of the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" is already an example of choosing a side since, as any journalist would know, these same techniques were called "torture" before Bush did it. She is an enabler of newspeak.

My sense is that many of you instead want NPR to adopt the position you believe in because you think that position is the correct one. I respect your views. But I would ask you to respect that reasonable people can differ.

Again, this is utterly infuriating. I don't "think that position is the correct one." I know it is the correct one. Reasonable people are going to have a very hard time giving a reasonable argument against calling something torture that is both domestically and internationally considered "torture" with a legal record documenting just that.

I believe that it is not the role of journalists to take sides or to characterize things.

Again, utterly ridiculous. It's not "taking sides" when you actually research the history and see what has been considered "torture." It's actually taking sides when you adopt euphemisms from the very people who enabled to the torture and want to keep that hidden.

To me, the word "waterboarding" alone sounds like what you might do at an amusement park. But if you describe it as tying someone to a board, pouring water down his mouth and nose to create a sense of drowning-- anyone would understand how terrifying that can be.

As a journalist, she should know that "waterboarding" was commonly known as "water torture" before the Bush admin.

But no matter how many distinguished groups -- the International Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioners -- say waterboarding is torture, there are responsible people who say it is not. Former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, their staff and their supporters obviously believed that waterboarding terrorism suspects was necessary to protect the nation's security.

So what? Responsible people? In the end, given that torture is a legal issue, no "responsible person" can say that water torture is not "torture" due to the fact that our very own domestic courts determined it was. Yet, by failing to acknowledge this, and act like there actually is a rational debate around whether or not "waterboarding" is torture, she thinks that's an example of good strong journalism that doesn't take sides? Unreal!

One can disagree strongly with those beliefs and their actions. But they are due some respect for their views, which are shared by a portion of the American public.

Perfect logic. So, if Osama Bin Ladin didn't consider it "murder" when he organized planes to crash and kill people, and there is a portion of a population that agrees with him, are we to call it something else than "murder" because their beliefs are due some respect? We're talking about a legal issue here which has been settled, not whether or not a god exists.

The main argument of my column was that NPR should describe waterboarding rather than use coded language to characterize it. Another alternative is to quote responsible officials who have described it as torture, for example President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

There are plenty of commentators, pundits and cable news shows who give opinions rather than facts. As a news consumer, I prefer to get the facts and then decide what I think.

How about just looking up Us v. Parker, where the very issue of water torture was declared illegal by our own courts? It's settled law, not a matter of opinion that can be debated. It's embarrassing that this so-called journalist doesn't recognize that court opinion on a criminal matter renders it a factual matter. Waterboarding is torture and torture is illegal. Or, is that just an opinion in her world?

I hope that most NPR listeners would be willing to give some credence to an alternative viewpoint -- a viewpoint that says journalists should strive to avoid taking sides and using loaded language in a contentious debate about the rightness or wrongness of a public policy.

Wow. More newspeak. She's striving to not take sides by actually taking a side. Go figure.