• http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Starving to death is one thing, but Terry was killed by dehydration and dehydration is a death that ranks among one of the top crueltries as practied by me, and I’ve very curious about studying different torture techniques and rating them on the cruelty, pain, psychological, and effectiveness scales.


    Patt’s position is my own, although justified by the simple expedient of quoting the federal constitution. No one should be deprieved of life, liberty, or property without due process.

    If the fake liberals applied this standard to everyone, it might be an idealistic but ultimately naive perspective. But because they don’t apply it to everyone, but wields due process as a weapon to bludgeon the enemies of terrorism, this makes them something other than naive peeps ignorant of reality.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Mandatory, correction. As practiced by torturers. I actually changed torturers to say me, because I thought it was saying “as seen by” instead of “as practiced by”. Think I somehow deleted “seen” in the editing process.

  • Pastor Ray

    Bio-ethicists consider the Terri Schiavo phenomena as necrophilic, partisan, horrific in its violation of human dignity. Please re-consider your impulse to prop-up this poor woman from her grave.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Bio-ethicists believe it is humane to terminate disabled babies and start on commencing involuntary euthanasia. Their view of things is skewed.

  • Pastor Ray

    You’re an idiot. Shut up and listen more.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    Come on, Pastor Ray — attack the specifics of the comments rather than calling the commenter names.

    Before denying what sounds impossible, read what a self-described “Christian ethicist” has to say about these issues in the lead article Is Koko A Person:

    Then do a search on Peter Singer, or some of the other names of prominent bio-ethicists. It is quite common for some of these people to promote the depersonalization of disabled babies and recommend that parents be allowed to have them killed.

    Terri Schiavo was not dying. With nothing more than food and water, she could have lived for years, and her parents were willing to take care of her so that Michael could go on with his life. But, he wanted her dead and the state assisted him in killing her. In what way is this a misstatement of the events?

    I don’t have the link at home, but three patients diagnosed in a persistent vegetative state (one for over three years) were given a common sleep aid and each of them awoke – one sufficiently to converse rationally with loved ones. This state lasted for 3-4 hours before they lapsed back in to unconsciousness. We have VERY little knowledge of what is happening in the brain…….and if we are going to make a mistake, should it not be on the side of life? Or should that only apply to people convicted of murder?

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    I don’t give a damn about erring on the side of life, simply because I favor more instantaneous executions. What I will tolerate is simply that if murderers and rapists like the nightstalker can get a second trial when the first one gave a guilty plea, then NS is simply getting double jeopardy which is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional in the sense that people cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or their property without due process. Justice dictates that one due process is enough, no due process is as bad as double due process. Terry had zero due process and criminals get like 5 due processes when they are on death row.

    The due process in Terry Schiavo’s case was non-existent. They gave murdering little b****ds more due process, twice in a row, then they give people who are innocent of any crime. I don’t err on the side of life, I try to err on the side of justice.

  • zhombre

    Pastor Ray is unfortunately rather typical of the contemporary libs: disagree with me and you’re an idiot, you reside in an intellectual sewer, if you don’t think as I do you must be some sort of moral cretin, shut up and listen, etc. This sort of contempt and intolerance for opposing POVs permeates the left and is one of the reasons, after years of thinking and voting garden variety liberal, including voting twice for Bill Clinton, I repudiated so-called liberalism and the left.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    If you go far enough on the Left, you’ll hit the far right people like Pat Buchanan and David Duke. They are brothers and sisters, just of different causes.

  • Kevin

    If they could have saved Zarqawi, they would have. Granted the first inclination of those at the scene might have been to beat him to death (although I would personally have favored beheading so he could have experienced it first-hand), the reality is that he has considerable knowledge that we could have exploited. I also don’t believe he would have ended up like Sadaam but more like the high al queda guy they caught sometime back (remember the pictures of him in his sleepwear); we captured him but he just seems to have disappeared off the radar screen–and I for one, applaud it (i.e. ACLU be damned.)

  • http://thedeepfreeze.blogspot.com Mike

    I just can’t buy anyone’s suggestion that our military guys beat Zarqawi to death when they found him. It doesn’t make sense.

    First of all, the initial reports said the Iraqi soldiers were the first on the scene. Not our soldiers. Could the Iraqi soldiers have beat him to death? Who knows, but it’s possible considering the difference in our cultures.

    Second of all, Zarqawi was far more useful alive than dead. We could have plucked his brain and uncovered the entire Al Queda organization in Iraq. Could one crazy soldier got the idea in his head he was going to take a cheap shot at Iraq’s #1 terrorist? Sure. Would the rest of his fellow soldiers on the scene allowed it to continue or even join in? I just can’t believe that.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Even if you could get zarqawi to spill the beans, it would not matter in the great majority of cases. You cannot use old intelligence to roll up a terroist organization. And old it would be after the terroists saw z man’s capture on world wide news.

    So, why don’t we delay telling the media about it until we got that information from z man? Because, z-man is a true believer. His beliefs may not be as strong as some, but he is obviously one of the leaders and therefore his beliefs are one of the strongest. Trying to interrogate fanatics will take a very long, and it requires breaking their will. You think you’re going to break a murderer and violent thug like z-man by sitting him in Gitmo and talking to him like you’re his buddy? Cause that is what GitMo interrogators use, they don’t use sleep deprivation, they don’t use hot/cold environments, they don’t use “water boying” unless expressly authorized by Rumsfield.

    It is far more useful propaganda wise to show that america will, can, and desire to kill terroists. It shows the Iraqis that America is for real, both in the positive sense and in the negative sense. We had plenty of information from z man’s house and laptop. This information allowed us to capture other people in the organization, who will spill their beans.

    In my view, z man was far more useful dead as an example to both America and Iraq, then alive. It is just not good propaganda to “disappear” murderers and terroists from the justice of the axe, because their victims are left without knowledge of his whereabouts and there is this belief that he will come back. Capturing Saddam did nothing, absolutely nothing, to stop the insurgency. Z Man, unlike saddam, was actually in operations control of a lot of projects. His death matters. If we had killed Saddam, and cut his body into shreds, the SUnnis would have jumped ship much sooner and much death and destruction could have been avoided pacifying the Sunni insurgents.

    Most insurgencies are fought with shoot to kill orders, like Britain used on the IRA. That is not the most effective way to do it. The United States, somewhat expectedly, turns the entire equation on its head. We are not in danger of killing too many insurgents and terroists, and losing the information that they hold. No, what we are in danger of, is NOT KILLING ENOUGH of them. Read Michael Yon’s blog about catch and release and also pay attention to how many terroists were released from GitMo to kill again.

    It is a Ph balance. Too acidic, and you got a problem. Too basic, and you get the same corrosive problems as acidity.

  • Kevin

    OK, I looked it up–where is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? He was the No. 3 man in al Qaeda and the one man most directly responsible for the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. ( http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/mohammed-shaikh-khalid/ ) Wikipedia (based on Human Rights Watch info) places him in a secret prison in Jordan; I would guess that Zarqawi would have ended up as his cell mate had he survived. As for the getting intelligence out of Zarqawi, if he had ended up imprisoned in Jordan where he was responsible for blowing up Jordanians at the wedding, I have no doubt that he would have talked. Old intelligence can be quite useful both for locating hard-to-move assets and also for information on contacts that Zarqawi had–they may not still be in the same location but now we would know of them and would be looking for them. Therefore, I stand by my previous post, he would have been infinitely more valuable alive than dead.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Bush has said he doesn’t send terroists to foreign countries in order to extract information from them. Now this doesn’t mean Bush doesn’t have a few jails in Afghanistan or Kurdistan ran by the locals, in which he moves those countries in. But I am hesitant to say that Bush is using deception here, namely because deception is not part of Bush’s psychological profile. So while it is possible the Sheik is in Jordan, if you go by Bush’s psychological profile, then Sheik is in a secret CIA base in a US occupied country like Afghanistan or Iraq.

    The benefits of raising morale is contrasted with the knowledge Z man had. If you don’t kill z man, morale won’t go as high and people won’t be as motivated. There is no definite conclusion, there is always a second ending if a person is alive. Where there is life, there is hope. When they are dead, there is no hope.

    Currently the equation is skewed towards killing z man, because all the useful intelligence was found at his safe house. Now, terroists may not have kept documents in the past, but their increased use of laptop/mobile technologies also renders them vulnerable to cyber footprints. So it is not a question of killing him for a propaganda victory and losing the information. It is a question of whether spending the effort to extract z man’s knowledge would be worth it given what the enemy would be doing in the meantime, including the world media. And given Bush’s lack of deception capabilities, I am not willing to bet that Bush could have handled Z man being alive and in a shape to be interrogated. Far more likely that the tide would have turned, that z man would become a rallying cry, proof of American weakness and lackadaisical ethics.

    The only reason you need to capture insurgents is because terroists alive can give you information to roll up cells and organizational logistics. This information was already found and has already been exploited by the 400 something raids after z man’s death. Given how many times the military has intercepted z man’s private courier messages to al qaeda, the isn’t much to learn from the man himself that would offset the advantages of keeping him alive.

    Propaganda wars are fought by perception, it is an illusionary setting. In reality, it shouldn’t matter whether someone is kept alive or dead. But in propaganda warfare, it matters, a lot. The perception by our allies and our enemies is worth as much or more than the information. And since we already got the information on z man’s organization, the detriment to killing him has been rebated.

  • http://www.kevincumblidge.com Kevin

    This reminds me a bit of where Robin Williams tells Matt Damon in “Good Will Hunting” that while he’s intelligent and knowledgeable, his knowledge is only from books and he really hasn’t lived yet (I’m paraphrasing here). We are in agreement on many issues (e.g. liking Serenity, The Incredibles, and the Corrs) and also our respective enjoyment of this site but it appears that your understanding of the military is via your interests–I don’t see where you list that you have actually served. (BTW, I added my website link to this post as I find it both rude and unfair to not make my info available.) Having actually done my time in the military and specifically in an intelligence capacity, I have to state unequivocally that Zarqawi would have been a gold mine of intelligence; no military person with an understanding of the intelligence community would have wanted him dead. As for the propaganda issue, look how easily the left was able to spin his death into a non-issue with many people. There was no big propaganda win here just the loss of a valuable asset for our side. Therefore, I must respectfully disagree that Zarqawi is better off dead and propose that your argument to the contrary, while intelligently presented, is still specious.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    You’re correct in saying that my outlook on things military is not derived from any formal training or War College tenure. I don’t see it as being particularly difficult for the world media to spin things their way, not given the amount of territory they already hold.

    I do not dispute that Z man could have provided additional information, simply because the human element is always useful to know about. I wouldn’t characterize it as a gold mine however. If it is a gold mine, it is offset by some of the disadvantages. There are advantages and disadvantages to any action taken, it just so happens to appear that whether zarqawi lived or died was out of the hands of the soldiers at the scene. HIs ultimate fate caught up to him, and neither you or I could stay the hand of destiny.

    The argument you are rendering is specious in the sense that if you don’t like my arguments because you discount my formal training in intelligence, then that is neither thinking outside the box nor adapting to the situation as it presents itself. Whether you like my arguments or not, should be based upon the detriments, flaws, and inconsistencies presented thus to you, it should not be because I hold a lower rank, have no formal training, or do not come from the same background as you do. Whether we agree on our interests or not, does not matter in the sense that two people can come to the same conclusion based upon different facts, techniques of analysis, and interpretations.

    I interpret the advantages and disadvantages one way, I focus more on the morale that z man’s death would bring to the Iraqis who have suffered death and destruction in the wake of z man and the American forces that shed blood trying to stop that destruction and death. You focus more on the goldmine of intelligence, acquiring prisoners and sources. I am more concerned with why people disbelieve me, than the fact that they prefer their own arguments over mine. A monolithic outlook in military operations is simply a way to do things that are logical, in the wrong way. Just because it is logical and by the book, does not mean it will bring success. And just because it is unorthodox and out of the box, does not mean it will fail. But before we get to that, explaining why you disbelieve and why I believe in the things that I do, is the right thing to do.

    Military intelligence should have realized long ago that differing and diverse outlooks and interpretations is a plus. Some people think in straight line logical analysis of A to B to C, they are methodical in calculating the odds with the variable data at their disposal. Others are more intuitive, their tactical awareness is out of the box thinking. You should not discount my views as specious just because you believe your way is the right way, and that anyone without any formal experience doesn’t know what is going on. You are limited by your view of things just as I am, and therefore I can cover your blindspots easier than you can do it for yourself, just as it is the same for me.

    Whatever problems the world media and the Democrats bring to the table concerning Zarqawi, is a separate campaign. Because propaganda is not based upon reality, whether someone is dead or not doesn’t really matter all things considered, since you can promote the detriments either way in light of the war effort. If z man is alive, this shows American weakness and how terroists can jihad against American while America will shed blood to save jihadists. If z man dies, well we already have seen what the world media has done with that. This category of things is Bush’s area of responsibility. I limit myself only to the pluses, the minuses, the positives, and the negatives of z man being alive or being dead. My argument already calculates the intelligence value of z man into it, it still comes out as a net positive that he is dead rather than alive.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    To summarize the positives that z man’s death brings, I only point people out to the joy of the Iraqis, the consolidation and hope that the Iraqi government is bringing to the table, the showing of American will and power to the Sunnis, and various other things that are greater than the sum of the disparate parts. All these are true, they are not specious (logical fallacies). It is not logically falacious to say that these are positives that would not have occured or would have occured in lesser quality had z man lived.

    I am sure there are other positives, that I don’t know about while others do. People like Michael Yon said he jumped in the air when he heard z man was taken out, he was so happy. Happy that a man died? Why would people be happy that a man died? The psychology matters as much, if not more so, than the hard factual data that can you get from interrogating z man. And as I said, it is not as if the choice was between killing z man and losing the information, or preserving z man and saving the information.

    This reminds me of something. Spies and information specialists always rely upon their sources and try not to burn them (meaning kill potential sources of information or out them through leaks). If this meant sacrificing a pawn, like say what Churchill did with a British raid in order to keep a double agent in Hitler’s inner circle, then spies would approve of it. While I understand this outlook, the perspective of spies and people who hold information as their speciality, I do not ascribe to it.

    I prefer supporting the Marines and letting the grunts take care of things. I cannot explain it adequately, except to say that it has shades of honor and duty. The people who have seen zarqawi’s rampage of death, those who have seen the corpses of children killed at the express orders of z man, those people and those families deserve to see Zarqawi’s deaths. If I was an irrational, raging man, I would favor z man’s death regardless of the intelligence potential. But I am not, I would have preserved z man’s life if it had meant that we could get the information that would spell the death of the insurgency. Ending the insurgency is larger than whether z man lives or dies. But because his laptop already gave us the information to roll up a large portion of his organization (400 raids so far), I did not have to make that moral and ethical decision whether to keep z man alive or let him die.

    In civilian affairs, it is plea bargains. Is a plea bargain just, if the information you get allows you to arrest and convict a bigger criminal? I guess it depends. Even though I understand why intelligence is important, I still don’t like keeping someone like z man alive because of the fact that he was the one who ordered children killed and therefore we must preserve his life in return for the informatin that would allow us to prevent more children from being killed. It is not just, but that is war and reality for you.

  • Kevin

    Point taken–I had no intent to be disrespectful, more of making a general point that everyone is an armchair quarterback given various scenarios but without standing in the quarterback’s shoes, we don’t necessarily have all the facts. I’ll agree that thinking outside the box is good/necessary but it can also be presumptuous to believe that one has unique ideas that other people (whose career happens to be in a particular field) haven’t previously thought of (and possibly rejected). On the other hand, I went to a lecture by Jeff “Skunk” Baxter (guitarist for the Doobie Brothers) two years ago where he spoke about his current consulting work with the intelligence community–specifically because he does look at problems differently. Maybe your interest in this subject area will prove to be the impetus for a career in intelligence? Finally, this is all purely academic as Zarqawi’s injuries were apparently severe enough (at least based on the “released” autopsy report) that his revival would have been impossible. As such, his survival is moot since the hand has been played.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar