PDA

View Full Version : Candidate Scott Brown's Torture Conundrum




Liberty Star
01-17-2010, 09:54 PM
Some very troubling news out of holy land:


Op-Ed

Candidate Scott Brown's Conundrum

01/08/10

The undersigned are both former military officers in active service and reserve service. Our combined service is over three decades. In decade after decade in both services, we experienced a heavy annual training emphasis on observing the laws of our country and the agreements contained in the Geneva Convention.

"How do you reconcile your belief that "water boarding' is not torture with the requirement of the Geneva Convention, which you are sworn to uphold by virtue of your military oath?"

As young recruits, this training was provided to us in formal classes often given by seasoned gunny sergeants or double rocker sergeants with hash marks and combat Infantryman badges. Kill your enemy in combat, but obey the Geneva Convention for captured enemies. It was the law.

In the beer halls and the NCO rooms, we'd learn about how these Geneva Convention rules played out on the battlefield, often by Marines or Soldiers who had either been captured or who had captured enemies on the battlefield.


He is a JAG (Judge Advocate General) officer who has, by both his training and avocation sworn to uphold the law. The Geneva Convention is Law. That is unequivocal.

The specter of "Torturing" enemy captives is abhorrent to anyone who has served in uniform and who has sworn to protect the Constitution and its nation's agreements about the conduct of War. In our later years, we became the trainers for younger soldiers. The terms of the International Geneva Convention agreement was non-negotiable.

Given this background, we are incensed that a candidate for Senate from Massachusetts, Mr. Scott Brown has the audacity to suggest that "Water boarding" is a permissible interrogation strategy. Now Mr. Brown is not just a civilian candidate, he is a state senator and an Officer in the Massachusetts National Guard. As such he is bound to a higher level of ethical behavior to obey the law than a candidate who is not a military officer.

Mr. Kennedy, an opponent for the Senatorial position has now got more credibility in his judgment than does that candidate Lt. Colonel Brown, especially since Colonel Brown's military occupational specialty (MOS) is as a lawyer. He is a JAG (Judge Advocate General) officer who has, by both his training and avocation sworn to uphold the law. The Geneva Convention is Law. That is unequivocal.

We request that the following questions be asked of Mr. Brown the next time he is in a debate- or he can respond in writing in this newspaper if it is more convenient:

How do you reconcile your belief that "water boarding' is not torture with the requirement of the Geneva Convention, which you are sworn to uphold by virtue of your MOS and your military oath.

If you suggest that "water boarding" is not "torture", what evidence can you produce to support this claim?

What evidence do you have that ‘water boarding' is a successful interrogation strategy, and with whom (what type of captured persona) shall that strategy be used?

If it is a successful interrogation strategy, at what point would you vote in congress to have that strategy included in the interrogating protocols of Local police or FBI when interrogating American citizens?

Would you encourage the use of ‘water boarding" for illegal immigrants at interrogation centers around the nation? - And if so, for what kinds of alleged crimes?

How do you reconcile your "water boarding" enthusiasm with the opposing views of fellow Republican Senator John McCain, who was a prisoner who endured torture at the hands of savage captors for five years during the Vietnam War?

We would appreciate a quick response to these questions to enlarge the issue for potential voters in Massachusetts who will be voting on a senator on January 19.

Thomas P. Johnson Ed.D., Major-US Army retired, Harwichport.

Joseph McParland JD, Former Captain-USMC, Harwich Port.

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2010/01/08/candidate-scott-brown-s-conundrum?blog=94

Liberty Star
01-18-2010, 01:15 AM
His Foreign policy:



Israel
Israel has made enormous sacrifices in an attempt to secure peace – including unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. I support a two-state solution that reaffirms Israel’s right to exist and provides the Palestinians with a place of their own where both sides can live in peace and security. As our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel lives every day under the threat of terror yet shares with America a dedication to democratic ideals, a respect for faith, and a commitment to peace in the region. Until a lasting peace is achieved, I support the security barrier erected by Israel which has proven successful in protecting Israeli civilians from terrorist attacks.

Iran
I support the bi-partisan Iran sanctions bill and believe that until Ahmadinejad gives up his nuclear ambitions he should be isolated from the rest of the world. With its reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran represents the biggest threat to Israel. Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier who has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Meeting with him confers legitimacy when the only correct response is to treat him as an outcast. A personal meeting with Ahmadinejad, as suggested by my opponent, would embolden him and be used as a propaganda tool to strengthen his position.

revolutionary8
01-18-2010, 01:37 AM
wrong link.

Liberty Star
01-18-2010, 08:30 PM
Whatcha mean?

Kylie
01-18-2010, 10:11 PM
His Foreign policy:



Israel
Israel has made enormous sacrifices in an attempt to secure peace – including unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. I support a two-state solution that reaffirms Israel’s right to exist and provides the Palestinians with a place of their own where both sides can live in peace and security. As our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel lives every day under the threat of terror yet shares with America a dedication to democratic ideals, a respect for faith, and a commitment to peace in the region. Until a lasting peace is achieved, I support the security barrier erected by Israel which has proven successful in protecting Israeli civilians from terrorist attacks.

Iran
I support the bi-partisan Iran sanctions bill and believe that until Ahmadinejad gives up his nuclear ambitions he should be isolated from the rest of the world. With its reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran represents the biggest threat to Israel. Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier who has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Meeting with him confers legitimacy when the only correct response is to treat him as an outcast. A personal meeting with Ahmadinejad, as suggested by my opponent, would embolden him and be used as a propaganda tool to strengthen his position.




Reading this makes me happy that I don't have to make this choice.

Like we need another kill happy person in charge, ya know?



Just my http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/twocents.gif