waterboarding
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
My hate, btw, is only for those who would hurt the U.S. of A.

And therein lies the heart of much of the disagreement on this (and many
other activities of this administration). Despite our differences on the
political perspective, we both share that love for this country. From my
perspective, however, the U. S. of A. isn't just the geography between lines
on a map or the people who live here, it's the system of laws and principles
under which we live and the freedoms guaranteed by those laws. When those
principles are compromised and those laws disregarded, that's a direct
attack on the U. S. of A.

From that perspective, when our President and his administration orders or
sanctions the torture of other human beings, that hurts the U. S. of A.
When the President orders illegal warrantless spying on American citizens
contrary to Constitutional guarantees, that's a direct assault on the U. S.
of A. When this administration intentionally reveals covert intelligence
assets for political purposes, that hurts the U. S. of A. When the Justice
Department is perverted to serve as a political arm of the Republican Party,
that's an attack on the U. S. of A. The list of ways in which this
administration has hurt the U. S. of A. goes on and on. As a result of GWB
& his cronies, we are less safe, less free, less secure, less strong, and
much less the U. S. of A we both love than when he took office. As I see
it, George W. Bush has hurt the U. S. of A. far more than any brown-skinned
boggeymen with which this administration tries to terrorize us.

Joe F.

waterboarding
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:26:50 -0500, "Opus--Mark H. Bowen"
wrote:

You, however, will remain a hate filled nihilist.

Your opinion.

Empirical formed overe many years.

But you will remain a swishy gay, fat and homely,
without any love or friends in your life, struggling to make a living,
and will finally end up as a ward of the state because you didn't do
as I told you to do. You may be educated, Mark, but you are the
dumbest son of a bitch I have ever known.

Yes Davieboy, everyone is aware that you derive happiness by counting your
pennies nightly.

My hate, btw, is only for those who would hurt the U.S. of A.

It must be torturously painful to hate one's self so much.

I don't
hate you or anyone else on roff. Never have and never will.

You shouldn't lie to yourself like that. It can't be healthy.

And talk
of hate -- read your last few posts to me.

Hell Davieboy, I wouldn't waste my energies hating you, I merely pity hate
filled people like you.

Totally unnecessary, for
you need not have entered the fray.

And it was a requirement of life that compelled you to jump in head first?

You did so just to spew *your*
hate.

For all that is good and decent in America, I did so to counterbalance your
hateful and illiterate lies.

HTH

Op


hth

Davie

waterboarding
 

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:52:37 GMT, "rb608"
wrote:

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
My hate, btw, is only for those who would hurt the U.S. of A.

And therein lies the heart of much of the disagreement on this (and many
other activities of this administration). Despite our differences on the
political perspective, we both share that love for this country. From my
perspective, however, the U. S. of A. isn't just the geography between lines
on a map or the people who live here, it's the system of laws and principles
under which we live and the freedoms guaranteed by those laws. When those
principles are compromised and those laws disregarded, that's a direct
attack on the U. S. of A.

From that perspective, when our President and his administration orders or
sanctions the torture of other human beings, that hurts the U. S. of A.
When the President orders illegal warrantless spying on American citizens
contrary to Constitutional guarantees, that's a direct assault on the U. S.
of A. When this administration intentionally reveals covert intelligence
assets for political purposes, that hurts the U. S. of A. When the Justice
Department is perverted to serve as a political arm of the Republican Party,
that's an attack on the U. S. of A. The list of ways in which this
administration has hurt the U. S. of A. goes on and on. As a result of GWB
& his cronies, we are less safe, less free, less secure, less strong, and
much less the U. S. of A we both love than when he took office. As I see
it, George W. Bush has hurt the U. S. of A. far more than any brown-skinned
boggeymen with which this administration tries to terrorize us.

Joe F.

Well said and rightly spoken. True patriots will agree.

/daytripper ()

waterboarding
 

"Fishin Technician" wrote in
message ...

Opus,
Try to have a new happy new year, F/T


--
Fishin Technician

Why wouldn't I? I don't plan on being waterboarded (read: tortured) anytime
in the near future.

Op

waterboarding
 

In article ,
"Opus--Mark H. Bowen" wrote:

As a guy who got waterboarded at SERE let me assure you that beheading
(which I admit to not having endured) is likely worse.

Are we assuming that everyone who is waterboarded survives?

If you were to know that you would not survive the torture, would you still
choose waterboarding?

Op

Well, I guess you're asking if I knew I was going to die which I prefer?

I'd have to say the beheading certainly.

I'm sure that there are people that have died while/after waterboarding.
It's stressful and damn unpleasant and if there were pre-existing
medical condition it could well trigger a fatal event. It was used at
SERE to make certain hard cases (me being not bright enough to realize I
was about to get labeled such) that they enemy WILL get the info from
you and waterboarding was a pretty safe way to show you the mildest
thing they will do. It was a good lesson/ I learned it well.

100% of people who are beheaded die. (OK, I'll admit I didn't research
that but I'll take a shot at it being true ;)

The point, I guess is that we're not going in and killing/maiming people
that are being questioned. If someone is reluctant and those in charge
believe there is time critical intelligence to be gained I'd say break
out the plank.

waterboarding
 

Allen wrote:



If someone is reluctant and those in charge
believe there is time critical intelligence to be gained I'd say break
out the plank.


not that i agree with you at all, but...um...you do know who is "in
charge", eh? the slippery slope is...well...slippery. and the
dumbasses in charge seem to enjoy the ride down way too much, imo.

jeff

waterboarding
 

"Allen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Opus--Mark H. Bowen" wrote:

As a guy who got waterboarded at SERE let me assure you that beheading
(which I admit to not having endured) is likely worse.

Are we assuming that everyone who is waterboarded survives?

If you were to know that you would not survive the torture, would you
still
choose waterboarding?

Op

Well, I guess you're asking if I knew I was going to die which I prefer?

I'd have to say the beheading certainly.

Yep, that is what I was askin'. My point was that I'd rather die quickly
than suffer for an extended period before death.

While I have never experienced waterboarding--the description of what takes
place is enough to let me know that I don't want to experience waterboarding
either.

I'm sure that there are people that have died while/after waterboarding.

There is a record of such.

It's stressful and damn unpleasant and if there were pre-existing
medical condition it could well trigger a fatal event. It was used at
SERE to make certain hard cases (me being not bright enough to realize I
was about to get labeled such) that they enemy WILL get the info from
you and waterboarding was a pretty safe way to show you the mildest
thing they will do. It was a good lesson/ I learned it well.

Not trying to be a smartass, but would you have considered waterboarding to
be a mild form of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"/torture, if you were
exposed to it over and over for many days or weeks?

100% of people who are beheaded die. (OK, I'll admit I didn't research
that but I'll take a shot at it being true ;)

Seems a reasonable assumption.

The point, I guess is that we're not going in and killing/maiming people
that are being questioned. If someone is reluctant and those in charge
believe there is time critical intelligence to be gained I'd say break
out the plank.

Would you condone attaching electrical devises to one's genitals, or gouging
someone's eyes out as well? (These may be poor examples, but I have never
contemplated the various forms of "Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques"/torture, and I am sure that you are much better versed in
techniques that would not necessarily cause observable physical damage or
harm, having gone thru SERE training and whatnot) If so, my point is: Aren't
you distinguishing between forms of torture? I that the U.S. should never
condone torture and certainly not codify the forms of torture, as to those
that are grudingly acceptable and those that might be more questionable.
Jeff's slippery slope, ya know.

I am not so much worried about our enemies treatment--per se--but the
message that officially condoned torture sends to the world about us as a
people. I know that others nations practice torture as a matter of course,
but I'd like to think that we, as a nation, are better than that. I also
know that, during times of war, horrible things happen to individuals and
groups of individuals, which will alter their moral compasses. These
situations should be rare, I would hope, and certainly not encouraged by our
political and military leaders.

It is my opinion, that if we allow "Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques"/torture to become common place in our arsenal of intelligence
gathering, we have abandoned our constitutional beliefs and are no better
than those we call our enemies.

And what about those so-called enemy combatants that are handed over to us
by questionable allies. As we have seen, in Afghanistan, tribalism creates
strange bed-fellows. It is know that members of the Norther Alliance handed
over territorial rivals to us as enemy combatants, who were merely rivals to
a particular warlord and not an actual enemy combatant/Taliban, as we would
have difined them. If we put these people through "Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques"/torture techniques and they were actually friendly to us, what
harm have we done to our strategic objectives. It is my contention that we
would be creating an enemy out of a friend in such cases.

No matter how the words above appear to you, I am not criticizing you, or
trying to provoke you. I just want to understand your position, and make
certain that my position is understood.

Regards,

Op

waterboarding
 

"Opus--Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message
...

*Correction*

I *believe* that the U.S. should never condone torture and certainly not
codify the forms of torture, as to those that are grudingly acceptable and
those that might be more questionable. Jeff's slippery slope, ya know.

Op

waterboarding
 

Opus--Mark H. Bowen wrote:s.

It is my opinion, that if we allow "Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques"/torture to become common place in our arsenal of intelligence
gathering, we have abandoned our constitutional beliefs and are no better
than those we call our enemies.

For the most part, that's true. But the thing is, we *are* no
better than those we call our enemies and we never have been.
The myth of some inherent ethical or moral superiority adhering
to Americans because they're American is just that: a myth.
Which is exactly *why* the guiding principles of the
Constitution--and our ability (so far) to submit to them--are so
important.

The fact that so many are so ready and willing to find excuses
for throwing out them the moment the going gets rough only
underscores, to my mind, just *how* important it is to keep and
protect them at all cost--rather than rely on knee-jerk hubris
about our own personal specialness.

- JR

waterboarding
 

"JR" wrote in message
...
Opus--Mark H. Bowen wrote:s.

It is my opinion, that if we allow "Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques"/torture to become common place in our arsenal of intelligence
gathering, we have abandoned our constitutional beliefs and are no better
than those we call our enemies.

For the most part, that's true. But the thing is, we *are* no better than
those we call our enemies and we never have been.

I agree with what you say, JR. I'm not much of a wordsmith and was simply
trying to convey that we should follow the tenets of our constitution. I
have my own opinions about our nations foreign policies, but didn't want to
start a ****-fight by expressing them.

The myth of some inherent ethical or moral superiority adhering to
Americans because they're American is just that: a myth. Which is exactly
*why* the guiding principles of the Constitution--and our ability (so far)
to submit to them--are so important.

I was not trying to allude to an ethical or moral superiority that we hold
over other peoples. I was attempting to state just what you did in the
latter statement above. I believe that the U.S. Constitution forbids
"Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques"/torture under the Eight Amendment.

The fact that so many are so ready and willing to find excuses for
throwing out them the moment the going gets rough only underscores, to my
mind, just *how* important it is to keep and protect them at all
cost--rather than rely on knee-jerk hubris about our own personal
specialness.

Words to live by, IMMHO.
"Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve
neither security nor liberty." (Benjamin Franklin)

There are many that would say that the times have changed and things that
were true during the 1700s are simply too antiquated to apply today. I don't
believe this to be true, as the fear of terror (state supported or other)
was just as salient in Franklin's time as it is today.

Op

- JR