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

wrote in news:g8kin3hqq7cdb1rbdh6kqr6g26gsd7q5sa@
4ax.com:

, absent a bilateral agreement to not use such techniques,


Isn't that what the Geneva Convention is??

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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

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

wrote in news:8mlin39ulrptb971amban4m3m57ar6a0do@
4ax.com:

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

Yeah-- Congress keeps talking about fixing that. We'll see if it happens.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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

"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

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

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 ;-)

wrote:
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.

Yeah, summary execution. We can cut their heads off, tape it, and post
it on YouTube.

Yeah, us.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.