|
|
waterboarding
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: ... You're a hoot and a half Your Loony Mikeness. Carry on. Unfortunately for you. snip Your bigotry and ignorance is recorded on Google and few here need be reminded of your disgusting homophobic commentary. It is interesting that a hate-filled Nazi type such as yourself would presume to lecture anyone on "basic human rights". As if. But you're my three dollar banjo so I'm sure you'll ... Carry on. -- Ken Fortenberry |
waterboarding
On Dec 31, 1:43 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Mike wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: ... You're a hoot and a half Your Loony Mikeness. Carry on. Unfortunately for you. snip Your bigotry and ignorance is recorded on Google and few here need be reminded of your disgusting homophobic commentary. It is interesting that a hate-filled Nazi type such as yourself would presume to lecture anyone on "basic human rights". As if. But you're my three dollar banjo so I'm sure you'll ... Carry on. -- Ken Fortenberry Once again you reinforce what I wrote. You and LaCourse have become pariahs and a laughing stock on this newsgroup. Richly deserved I might add. MC |
waterboarding
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Mike wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: ... You're a hoot and a half Your Loony Mikeness. Carry on. Unfortunately for you. snip Your bigotry and ignorance is recorded on Google and few here need be reminded of your disgusting homophobic commentary. Once again you reinforce what I wrote. ... LOL !! Is *that* what I did ? You're a hoot and three quarters Your Loony Mikeness. Carry on. -- Ken Fortenberry |
waterboarding
Mike wrote:
Once again you reinforce what I wrote. You and LaCourse have become pariahs and a laughing stock on this newsgroup. Richly deserved I might add. LaCourse and Fortenberry has a curious and telling thing in common. They're prone to insult someone (me, for example) as being "gay" or "effeminate." Anyone who is honest and who knows me personally, and there are several in ROFF who do, knows that I'm neither gay nor effeminate. My two daughters, my wife, and my girlfriend would also back that up. But I don't have to defend myself from the likes of those two. LaCourse and Fortenberry have to defend themselves for their gratuitous, homophobic, insulting behavior. It might be caused by doubts about their own masculinity, or it might be caused by pure pigheaded meanness. Or both. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
waterboarding
rw wrote:
LaCourse and Fortenberry has a curious and telling thing in common. They're prone to insult someone (me, for example) as being "gay" or "effeminate." ... I've never called you "gay" and my calling you "effeminate" is an accurate observation, you are effeminate right down to your squeaky little whine. That's why your rough, tough Idaho cowboy shtick is so hilarious to anyone who has actually met you. If being called effeminate is so offensive to you as to be insulting when you are, in fact, effeminate then I would suggest that *you* are the one who has serious doubts about his own masculinity. -- Ken Fortenberry |
waterboarding
On Dec 30, 5:14*pm, rw wrote:
Mike wrote: Once again you reinforce what I wrote. You and LaCourse have become pariahs and a laughing stock on this newsgroup. Richly deserved I might add. LaCourse and Fortenberry has a curious and telling thing in common. They're prone to insult someone (me, for example) as being "gay" or "effeminate." Anyone who is honest and who knows me personally, and there are several in ROFF who do, knows that I'm neither gay nor effeminate. My two daughters, my wife, and my girlfriend would also back that up. But I don't have to defend myself from the likes of those two. LaCourse and Fortenberry have to defend themselves for their gratuitous, homophobic, insulting behavior. It might be caused by doubts about their own masculinity, or it might be caused by pure pigheaded meanness. Or both.. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. Larry Craig use to say quite a few things about gays and sinner. A lot of then are in the Cogtressional Record. However if were in the stall next to him it was a different tune. |
waterboarding
BJ Conner wrote:
Larry Craig use to say quite a few things about gays and sinner. A lot of then are in the Cogtressional Record. However if were in the stall next to him it was a different tune. Some folks would say your Larry Craig example explains a good deal about His Loony Mikeness' vociferous, totally out of the blue attack on gays in this forum. In fact some folks *did* say exactly that at the time. -- Ken Fortenberry |
waterboarding
On Dec 31, 2:14 am, rw wrote:
Mike wrote: Once again you reinforce what I wrote. You and LaCourse have become pariahs and a laughing stock on this newsgroup. Richly deserved I might add. LaCourse and Fortenberry has a curious and telling thing in common. They're prone to insult someone (me, for example) as being "gay" or "effeminate." Anyone who is honest and who knows me personally, and there are several in ROFF who do, knows that I'm neither gay nor effeminate. My two daughters, my wife, and my girlfriend would also back that up. But I don't have to defend myself from the likes of those two. LaCourse and Fortenberry have to defend themselves for their gratuitous, homophobic, insulting behavior. It might be caused by doubts about their own masculinity, or it might be caused by pure pigheaded meanness. Or both.. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. Indeed, being insulted or defamed by one or both of them is more or less the norm for the sensible and civilised people here. Neither of them has any credibility left, so whatever they say is worthless anyway, but it is often frustrating nevertheless. Unfortunately, for quite a long time, I simply did not grasp that I had no need to defend myself against such, and I got very upset, frustrated, and annoyed by it. rather damaging my own reputation in the process. Shame that, but one is always cleverer with hindsight. If somebody called me a Nazi here where I live for instance, ( which is as unlikely as winning three times running in the lotto!), he would be on the deck about three seconds later, and he would also lose in court as a direct result of using such an epithet. In the meantime, with Fortenberry, itīs just totally laughable. One minute he is ranting on about homophobes, or racist epithets and stuff like that, and the next he is calling people gays, racists,.homos, nazis, and such. He is not only a fanatical and totally inconsistent bigot, and a pathological liar, he is also apparently too stupid to realise it. Maybe itīs because he doesnīt know much about fishing, and apart from football and ranting on about other people he simply has nothing else to say?. Whatever, it is no longer any real concern of mine, there is no point in even taking any notice of it. Obviously there is nothing much to be done about it. TL MC |
waterboarding
Mike wrote:
Indeed, being insulted or defamed by one or both of them is more or less the norm for the sensible and civilised people here. ... Actually, the gold standard of insults, the one sure way sensible folks know they're every bit the "expert" fly fisherman as any other roffian is to be labeled "Dumbo" by His Loony Mikeness. I just wish I had the T-shirt. LOL !! -- Ken Fortenberry |
waterboarding
Mike wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:14 am, rw wrote: Mike wrote: Once again you reinforce what I wrote. You and LaCourse have become pariahs and a laughing stock on this newsgroup. Richly deserved I might add. LaCourse and Fortenberry has a curious and telling thing in common. They're prone to insult someone (me, for example) as being "gay" or "effeminate." Anyone who is honest and who knows me personally, and there are several in ROFF who do, knows that I'm neither gay nor effeminate. My two daughters, my wife, and my girlfriend would also back that up. But I don't have to defend myself from the likes of those two. LaCourse and Fortenberry have to defend themselves for their gratuitous, homophobic, insulting behavior. It might be caused by doubts about their own masculinity, or it might be caused by pure pigheaded meanness. Or both. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. Indeed, being insulted or defamed by one or both of them is more or less the norm for the sensible and civilised people here. Neither of them has any credibility left, so whatever they say is worthless anyway, but it is often frustrating nevertheless. Unfortunately, for quite a long time, I simply did not grasp that I had no need to defend myself against such, and I got very upset, frustrated, and annoyed by it. rather damaging my own reputation in the process. That shows to me, Mike, an insightful look into your troubled personality. Admit it. Life on Usenet (ROFF in particular) isn't like real life. Get used to it. The only effective way to deal with these clowns is to laugh at them. BTW, I have a laughable photo of Fortenberry in his pear-shaped-body glory, getting ready to jump into the dreaded borrowed belly boat at Grinder Lake. It's funny. He was like a duck in room-temperature bowl of gelatin -- barely made it to the fishing spot at the inlet, and then complained the whole time. Left early. What a wimp. I'm tempted to post it on abpf. No requests, please. It's too cruel, even for me. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
waterboarding
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote: LaCourse and Fortenberry has a curious and telling thing in common. They're prone to insult someone (me, for example) as being "gay" or "effeminate." ... I've never called you "gay" and my calling you "effeminate" is an accurate observation, you are effeminate right down to your squeaky little whine. That's why your rough, tough Idaho cowboy shtick is so hilarious to anyone who has actually met you. If being called effeminate is so offensive to you as to be insulting when you are, in fact, effeminate then I would suggest that *you* are the one who has serious doubts about his own masculinity. What a little bitch! :-) -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
waterboarding
On Dec 31, 3:18 am, rw wrote:
That shows to me, Mike, an insightful look into your troubled personality. Admit it. Life on Usenet (ROFF in particular) isn't like real life. Get used to it. The only effective way to deal with these clowns is to laugh at them. BTW, I have a laughable photo of Fortenberry in his pear-shaped-body glory, getting ready to jump into the dreaded borrowed belly boat at Grinder Lake. It's funny. He was like a duck in room-temperature bowl of gelatin -- barely made it to the fishing spot at the inlet, and then complained the whole time. Left early. What a wimp. I'm tempted to post it on abpf. No requests, please. It's too cruel, even for me. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. That is probably correct, for a while I had a great deal on my plate. Also, I still expected people to be "normal" on here. Obviously silly of me, but as I wrote, it is easy to be clever with hindsight. And others often see oneīs mistakes before one sees them oneself. O would some Power the giftie gie us To see ourselves as others see us! It would from many a blunder free us, And foolish notion: What airs in dress and gait would leave us, And even devotion! ( From Robert Burns. "To a Louse") I really have no interest at all in what he looks like, and I really have no interest in denigrating or deriding him gratuitously or for any other reason than his behaviour towards myself and others on here. I donīt think itīs a good idea for you to do it either, but of course that is your affair. It is tempting to retaliate in kind, but if you do, then you are no better than he is. He calls you gay, so you call him fat and ugly, etc etc etc. Just pointless, and then both parties are guilty of the same sin. If he tells a lie about you, and you call him a liar, that is another matter entirely. You are merely defending yourself, and with the truth. TL MC |
waterboarding
Mike wrote:
That is probably correct, for a while I had a great deal on my plate. No one here really cares what's on your plate. Occasionally someone chimes in with a sad story, and they typically receive the obligatory condolences. Fortenberry is a master of exploiting that -- recruiting sympathy for his dog dying or his stroke or whatever. Others are sincere. If I were dying in agony of bone cancer, ROFF is the last place I'd announce it. Also, I still expected people to be "normal" on here. Obviously silly of me, You said it. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
waterboarding
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:49:08 -0500, JR wrote:
Opus--Mark H. Bowen wrote: "JR" wrote wrote: ...and it's effective, too... Yeah? How do you know? I believe Richard was correcting the ROFF's own Theo-Neocon's grammar. I got that, Op. Way I read it, though, after correcting Dave, he went on to say the technique itself was effective. Hellfire, man, didn't you read Steve's cite...are you suggesting not only that Steve would post things that aren't the story, the whole story, and nothing but the story, but also that he could even find things on the internet that aren't 100% legit and accurate? It should be clear that the anonymous poster Steve found on the internet and cites as evidence thinks it is effective...what more solid-as-a-rock, concrete proof could you want? Richard, if that's what you meant, how do you know? I could tell you how, but then, I'd have to kill you. Well, maybe not kill you, but I'd have to do something to you, like mess up your hair or frog your arm or something... Happy Holidays, R ....and on a more serious note - do you doubt that it is effective? Here's an interesting thing: The debate, seemingly and for most, is not over its effectiveness in making people disclose information, but rather, whether or not it is or isn't "torture." Take, for example, the recent coverage of the ex-CIA agent's information - he states plainly that it is effective, but he considers it "torture" and is opposed to it being done. But many or most of those (but importantly, not all) opposed to "torture" claim that "torture" isn't effective or reliable as a method of gaining information. |
waterboarding
"rw" wrote in message ... If I were dying in agony of bone cancer, ROFF is the last place I'd announce it. hell, I'll go you one better and suggest that ROFF is among the things I wouldn't waste time on, in that situation...... Tom |
waterboarding
rw wrote in news:13nbffg4cq3hu31
@corp.supernews.com: It's torture. Plain and simple. Now, rw, if it was good enough for the Holy Inquisitors, it should be good enough for us. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
waterboarding
On Dec 31, 5:08 am, rw wrote:
Mike wrote: That is probably correct, for a while I had a great deal on my plate. No one here really cares what's on your plate. Indeed, and that was one of my basic mistakes, along with assuming that anglers on an angling board would be very interested in angling, and friendly towards each other as a result of their common interest. If none of this can be taken seriously, or has any bearing on the "real" world, then it is just a monumental waste of time. TL MC |
waterboarding
On Dec 31, 1:52*am, wrote:
snip Three direct questions for you: Do you consider waterboarding (as typically described here and in the MSM) as torture? Do you believe it is effective in eliciting truthful and useful information? Do you believe it is a practice the United States of America should be utilizing? |
waterboarding
rw wrote:
... BTW, I have a laughable photo of Fortenberry in his pear-shaped-body glory, getting ready to jump into the dreaded borrowed belly boat at Grinder Lake. ... The first and last time anyone will ever see me in a goddamned belly boat. Stupidest way to fly fish I ever encountered and I thought that *before* I got talked into trying it. Give me my canoe any day. -- Ken Fortenberry |
waterboarding
rw wrote:
... Occasionally someone chimes in with a sad story, and they typically receive the obligatory condolences. Fortenberry is a master of exploiting that -- recruiting sympathy for his dog dying ... I was sorry to hear about Arlo. I suppose you'd say that you exploited my sympathy but funny thing is, I didn't feel the least bit exploited. -- Ken Fortenberry |
waterboarding
|
waterboarding
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:39:03 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote: On Dec 31, 1:52*am, wrote: snip Three direct questions for you: Well, you might consider them "direct," but only 1 of them is actually so. IAC, here are the answers I choose to give: Do you consider waterboarding (as typically described here and in the MSM) as torture? With that specific phrasing, I have no answer. However, if asked if I thought waterboarding could, under any description and/or circumstances, be considered "torture," (and unequivocally un-(US)Constitutional and/or illegal) my answer would be yes. However, if asked if I thought that under specific circumstances, its name was not material, that it was not illegal, and that the US Constitution had nothing whatsoever to do with it even if US citizens were using it, my answer would also be yes. Do you believe it is effective in eliciting truthful and useful information? Yes. That isn't debatable and who believes what about its use or whether it's "torture" isn't material - it has elicited truthful and useful information, so it is "effective" in doing so. But that isn't the same thing as saying that I think all information it might elicit can be, by mere virtue of the technique, considered automatically as truthful and useful. Do you believe it is a practice the United States of America should be utilizing? Again, the phrasing is overly broad. If you mean to ask if I think it should allowed in specific, limited cases by trained personnel of US citizenship or citizens of allied countries after authorization by at least two responsible persons of sufficient "rank" (not military rank), also of US citizenship, the answer is yes (with the caveat that the authorization for US citizens to use it come from US citizens - IOW, no non-US personnel giving US citizens orders to waterboard). If you mean to ask if I think it ought to be allowed by anyone with a board and some water on anyone who, in that person's sole discretion, "deserves" or "needs" it, the answer is an absolute no. Or, if you mean to ask if I think Andy and Barney should be allowed to use it on Otis to find out where the still is, the answer is no way, no how, and if they do it, they go straight to jail. IOW, no, I don't think it is some half-assed police interrogation technique or that it be used as such _under any circumstances whatsoever_. And I'm undecided but leaning against allowing _military_ personnel to utilize or authorize any such techniques, but can see that under extraordinary, limited and extreme circumstances, the affiliation of the administerer or authorizer of the technique could be a tertiary consideration in its authorization and use. Happy Holidays, R |
waterboarding
On Dec 31, 3:55 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:t68fn3lev2rqn8gtb2e18kpi0b77gp1icr@ 4ax.com: Take, for example, the recent coverage of the ex-CIA agent's information - he states plainly that it is effective, but he considers it "torture" and is opposed to it being done. But many or most of those (but importantly, not all) opposed to "torture" claim that "torture" isn't effective or reliable as a method of gaining information. Fine-- if an agent believes that a "24"-like scenario is occurring, where thousands could be saved if nastiness is performed, let him proceed knowing that he could go to jail for a long time. Let him know he needs to look his citizens in the eye and say "I tortured someone to save you," and wonder if they'll understand. Let him wonder if he'll be pardoned or not. Let him wonder if he'll be tried in an international court. Perhaps with all this in mind, that agent (or possibly "contractor", which is even more disgusting) would be in the proper frame of mind to make the decision about whether to torture a fellow human being. It shouldn't be made legal, and it certainly shouldn't rise to a position of policy. -- Scott Reverse name to reply There are a lot of such cases, and they happen quite frequently. It would appear that results in some cases, ( as in the scenarios you mentioned were a criminal has planted a bomb, kidnapped a child, etc, and may be coerced/tortured into revealing information leading to rescue and the prevention of death and suffering to others) justify the results, However, in the majority of cases, ( except in movies) there are no results. So the actions taken are pointless and cruel. Here is a well documented case for instance; https://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/d...tort-d13.shtml That a civilised country should condone and use such methods to the extent they are being used by America at this time, is not reconcilable with any ethical or moral standards, is illegal, and contravenes a number of international statutes and treaties. This alone has caused America a great loss of respect, even from its allies. It also serves to make terrorists and their supporters even more fanatical, as they are convinced that they are fighting a holy war against suppression and oppression. These things have all occurred because America has taken illegal, ill- considered, and quite foolish steps to fight a "war" which it can not win, from the very start. The perpetrators are the people who orchestrated all this. Not the players on the field. This level of action is only possible if it has been ordered, and is condoned by those responsible. Although some soldiers, agents ets etc might act independently in such matters, the majority are acting under illegal orders. For many years, various secret services have used such methods, and as long as the general public does not hear about too many cases, or things donīt get so far out of hand that torturing prisoners becomes the norm, most people donīt care much, because it does not affect them directly. Here, the foundations of your constitution are being undermined, ( and various human rights treaties) and this is affecting very large numbers of people. MC |
waterboarding
On Dec 31, 10:37*am, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:39:03 -0800 (PST), rb608 Do you consider waterboarding (as typically described here and in the MSM) as torture? With that specific phrasing, I have no answer. * Thank you for your time, Mr. Mukasey. Do you believe it is effective in eliciting truthful and useful information? Yes. *That isn't debatable and who believes what about its use or whether it's "torture" isn't material - it has elicited truthful and useful information, so it is "effective" in doing so. *But that isn't the same thing as saying that I think all information it might elicit can be, by mere virtue of the technique, considered automatically as truthful and useful. I'll assume for the moment the gist of the question was unclear. I did not intend the question to be if a tortured prisoner ever provides truthful answers, for obviously one does. The operative word in the question was "effective". That is, do you personally believe the amount and usefulness of information obtained justifies the use of the technique? Do you believe it is a practice the United States of America should be utilizing? Again, the phrasing is overly broad. * It was intended as broad. Do you believe waterboarding is a technique that should ever, under any circumstances, be sanctioned for interrogation of human beings in US custody? |
waterboarding
On Dec 31, 9:37*am, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:39:03 -0800 (PST), rb608 wrote: On Dec 31, 1:52*am, wrote: snip Three direct questions for you: Well, you might consider them "direct," but only 1 of them is actually so. *IAC, here are the answers I choose to give: Do you consider waterboarding (as typically described here and in the MSM) as torture? With that specific phrasing, I have no answer. *However, if asked if I thought waterboarding could, under any description and/or circumstances, be considered "torture," (and unequivocally un-(US)Constitutional and/or illegal) my answer would be yes. *However, if asked if I thought that under specific circumstances, its name was not material, that it was not illegal, and that the US Constitution had nothing whatsoever to do with it even if US citizens were using it, my answer would also be yes. Do you believe it is effective in eliciting truthful and useful information? Yes. *That isn't debatable and who believes what about its use or whether it's "torture" isn't material - it has elicited truthful and useful information, so it is "effective" in doing so. *But that isn't the same thing as saying that I think all information it might elicit can be, by mere virtue of the technique, considered automatically as truthful and useful. Do you believe it is a practice the United States of America should be utilizing? Again, the phrasing is overly broad. *If you mean to ask if I think it should allowed in specific, limited cases by trained personnel of US citizenship or citizens of allied countries after authorization by at least two responsible persons of sufficient "rank" (not military rank), also of US citizenship, the answer is yes (with the caveat that the authorization for US citizens to use it come from US citizens - IOW, no non-US personnel giving US citizens orders to waterboard). * If you mean to ask if I think it ought to be allowed by anyone with a board and some water on anyone who, in that person's sole discretion, "deserves" or "needs" it, the answer is an absolute no. * Or, if you mean to ask if I think Andy and Barney should be allowed to use it on Otis to find out where the still is, the answer is no way, no how, and if they do it, they go straight to jail. *IOW, no, I don't think it is some half-assed police interrogation technique or that it be used as such _under any circumstances whatsoever_. And I'm undecided but leaning against allowing _military_ personnel to utilize or authorize any such techniques, but can see that under extraordinary, limited and extreme circumstances, the affiliation of the administerer or authorizer of the technique could be a tertiary consideration in its authorization and use. Happy Holidays, R If leaglly ordered to disclose the subject of Chenys 2001 energy task force meeting would you agree with waterboarding Cheney and or any one else who attended the meeting. |
waterboarding
On 31-Dec-2007, Mike wrote: These things have all occurred because America has taken illegal, ill- considered, and quite foolish steps to fight a "war" which it can not win, from the very start. The perpetrators are the people who orchestrated all this. Not the players on the field. I could not agree more I would hope that they are duly punished for their redresses i.e, war progireering and crimes against humanity. A pubklic hanging of Bush and Cheney in Yankee Staium would be nice someday I have no problem w the American troops. They are just duped into thinking that they are defending their country again terrorism - But alas it is all for money? The almighty $ Fred Fred |
waterboarding
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:00:46 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote: On Dec 31, 10:37*am, wrote: Again, the phrasing is overly broad. * It was intended as broad. OK, here's a broad answer: yes or no or maybe or maybe not... If one wants specific answers, one needs to ask specific questions. Do you believe waterboarding is a technique that should ever, under any circumstances, be sanctioned for interrogation of human beings in US custody? Based upon my reading of the phrasing and with "sanctioned" to mean "allowed, but in VERY limited circumstances and under very strict guidelines/protocols/controls/etc.," yes. R |
waterboarding
On 31 Dec 2007 14:55:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: wrote in news:t68fn3lev2rqn8gtb2e18kpi0b77gp1icr@ 4ax.com: Take, for example, the recent coverage of the ex-CIA agent's information - he states plainly that it is effective, but he considers it "torture" and is opposed to it being done. But many or most of those (but importantly, not all) opposed to "torture" claim that "torture" isn't effective or reliable as a method of gaining information. Fine-- if an agent believes that a "24"-like scenario is occurring, where thousands could be saved if nastiness is performed, let him proceed knowing that he could go to jail for a long time. He or she would be doing just that if they are proceeding under their own authority. Let him know he needs to look his citizens in the eye and say "I tortured someone to save you," Er...no... and wonder if they'll understand. What they might or might not "understand" is not an issue. Let him wonder if he'll be pardoned or not. No. Let him wonder if he'll be tried in an international court. Absolutely, positively no way, no how. Perhaps with all this in mind, that agent (or possibly "contractor", which is even more disgusting) would be in the proper frame of mind to make the decision about whether to torture a fellow human being. No, if anyone faced with using extreme methods of interrogation isn't personally and internally conflicted about doing it, regardless of external repercussions or lack thereof, they aren't suited to be using such methods because they are not capable of fully understanding the gravity of what they are doing. If I were put in the position of being a "sign-off" to give authorization to waterboard someone, I would not allow anyone who I wasn't personally convinced was uneasy with even the request and who would proceed with internal conflict and extreme trepidation to so much as be in the room while the technique was used. This isn't something for amateurs to be ****ing around with, a subject for cavalier attitudes or certainty of position (for or against), and it damned sure is not something for sadists to use to get their jollies. Happy Holidays, R |
waterboarding
On Dec 31, 1:39*pm, wrote:
yes. Fine. I'll infer that this also lends an affirmative to the second question for the proper guidelines/protocols/controls; but what about waterboarding = torture? |
waterboarding
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:59:01 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote: On Dec 31, 1:39*pm, wrote: yes. Fine. I'll infer that this also lends an affirmative to the second question for the proper guidelines/protocols/controls; but what about waterboarding = torture? Based upon the success rate demonstrated by "inferring" around here, I'd offer that doing so might not be the best course, especially with such a subject... That said, waterboarding may or may not be "torture." For example, to do it to a child simply for some perverted "amusement" is not only _torture_ but a host of other things. OTOH, to do it to a hardened operative who is in unquestionable possession of knowledge from whom, which if obtained, will prevent the loss of innocent life is a matter of debate among reasonable (and informed) people. IMO, whether one chooses to call it "torture" or not is not material - the use of such technique(s) are called for, absent a bilateral agreement to not use such techniques, but again, only under VERY "controlled" conditions. Happy Holidays, R |
waterboarding
|
waterboarding
On 31 Dec 2007 19:49:08 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: wrote in news:6tdin3lcg0mtp82eu20lg5djhs6qikk85u@ 4ax.com: This isn't something for amateurs to be ****ing around with, a subject for cavalier attitudes or certainty of position (for or against), and it damned sure is not something for sadists to use to get their jollies. No, just mercenary contractors. Keep in mind that we've been talking about what US forces and employess are allowed to do. Nobody's been asking what the contractors are allowed to do, and they seem exempt from most laws. FWIW, I knew a guy about 15 years ago in Cleveland, and I have zero ways to confirm his story, but he claimed he was an interrogator in Vietnam. He was trained specifically in this business, and there was something much like an apprenticeship program in place. This guy was kept on some pretty heavy duty medications, and was at the time semi functional in an allied health position in the VA. Once, he described some of the things (hey says) he's done. He said he was flown from place to place to question prisoners, and that before he ever got to a site, the prisoners were often placed out in public, seated and bound, with a bucket over their heads and a wrench hanging around their necks. Everyone who passed by would hit the bucket with the wrench-- and this could have gone on for days. The stuff he said would go on after he got there was absolutely bone chilling. I have no way of knowing if he was telling the truth or not, but after a bit of googling around, I just found an account that was eerily like what he said 15 years ago. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/vietnam- nviuswcv-19701201.html, and look for "They used one as a scare mechanism...". It's so close, it could have been him testifying. He was certainly screwed up enough for this to be true Um, OK...I wasn't an interrogator in Vietnam and I'm pretty sure I don't and didn't know this guy, in Cleveland 15 years ago or otherwise, so I really have no basis of commenting upon his story. But if you simply want comments, here's mine: You seem to be hinting around that this guy's stories amounted to him having committed what could arguably be "war crimes." I would offer that unless you knew this guy REALLY well and had some commonality of experience with him, and while it is possible that someone who had done such would sit around bragging, chatting, or talking about it, I'd be dubious of someone discussing such with a mere social friend or acquaintance. Happy Holidays, R |
waterboarding
On 31 Dec 2007 20:44:53 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: wrote in news:g8kin3hqq7cdb1rbdh6kqr6g26gsd7q5sa@ 4ax.com: , absent a bilateral agreement to not use such techniques, Isn't that what the Geneva Convention is?? Another overly broad question, but IAC, when did al-Q'ueda and the like become signatories to the Geneva Convention? And also IAC, that brings a whole 'nuther aspect into the discussion - the legal aspects of (conventional) warfare. If that's the matter under discussion, it's simple: US personnel are under no legal prohibition from waterboarding al-Q'ueda operatives who aren't activated, regular members, and captured in the uniform, of certain countries or forces. And if they are such, depending on what they were doing when captured, they are subject to summary execution. Happy Holidays, R |
waterboarding
|
waterboarding
Dave LaCourse wrote:
There is no double standard. They practice REAL torture. Ask John McCain. Good source. He's already been asked if waterboarding was REAL torture, and he's repeatedly said yes, it is. The only Republican candidate who actually knows what he's talking about on the subject is the only one who doesn't waffle and prevaricate on the subject -- or feel the need to thump his chest and pretend to be some Jack Bauer tough guy. - JR |
waterboarding
"JR" wrote in message ... Dave LaCourse wrote: There is no double standard. They practice REAL torture. Ask John McCain. Good source. He's already been asked if waterboarding was REAL torture, and he's repeatedly said yes, it is. The only Republican candidate who actually knows what he's talking about on the subject is the only one who doesn't waffle and prevaricate on the subject -- or feel the need to thump his chest and pretend to be some Jack Bauer tough guy. - JR This hasn't been used in a while, so here goes! Why do you hate America, JR? :~^ ) Op |
waterboarding
|
waterboarding
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:19:16 -0500, JR wrote:
wrote: ..... Happy Holidays, Same to you. ...and on a more serious note - do you doubt that it is effective? Yes. Here's an interesting thing: The debate, seemingly and for most, is not over its effectiveness in making people disclose information, but rather, whether or not it is or isn't "torture." I don't think that's true. No one doubts that it is highly effective at making people disclose *information," only that it is effective at making people disclose the *truth.* - JR That's true. For instance, if *I* was being waterboarded, the very first double-naught spy I'd give up would be Richard. /daytripper (and then I'd name the rest of you scurvy dogs ;-) |
waterboarding
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004 - 2006 FishingBanter