DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
OK you strive to do right, and they killed your kid because you were
not able to make them talk.. Was that right? Evil won. You lost...
over...no second chance.


1- torture is evil
2- People who torture others are evil
3- People who order others to commit torture are evil

agreeded what's your problem? The president said he did not approve
torture.
I do not endorse torture, just effective questioning.

How do you think we should get intel from a captured prisioner?
Is it OK to detain and question known enemy leaders ?



And here's a big one:

4- things prisoners say to avoid or reduce torture are not
necessarily facts.

Things you get by feeding prisioners 3 meals a day and providing AC,
TV, koran, ect are not nessarily facts.


5- Torture very often goes wrong, such as when some "OGA
guys" killed one of the Al-Queda #2 men they captured before
he could reveal anything. Apparently had a weak heart or
something. Oh well.

Yeah oh well....to bad......so sad. BTW if your going to wage war and
get captured you should make sure your heart is up to it.


So tell us Joe, what if you torture an Al-Queda prisoner and
gain NO useful info? Actually, that's not a 'what if' that
is what has happened.

Bummer......perhaps you can pitch in with OZ and send the *******s a
care package!

Someone sucker punches me I'm going to stomp the **** outta em, or go
down trying. You can kiss and coddle his ass all you wan't and be the
better man yet bloodier and perhaps dead if he see you are to weak to
defend yourself.



In short, whatever your opponent does is not an excuse for
what *you* do, unless you're one of those weak-minded
weenies who think everything is somebody else's fault and
cannot take responsibility for your actions.

Yeah I'm sure if the tower was taken down in LA, and 1000's died, you
would be all over Bush saying why diden't you do everything you could
to prevent it? You would want him impeached, for sure if we had the
planner in custody and did not bother to find out what his next mass
murder plan was. Right?

You have studied history a bit Doug.

Questions, you never bothered to answer
1. Did we capture enemy nazi's and Japs?
2. Did we question them?
3. Did we tell the world were we kept them during questioning? Were
they given lawers to defend them during the war?

And here's the one that matters.

Would you use extreme questioning (" torture" to you Lilly Bural
winnies) techniques on Abu Zubaydah to save 1000 Americans from getting
murdered?

Joe

DSK

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:43:30 -0700, Joe wrote:


agreeded what's your problem? The president said he did not approve
torture.
I do not endorse torture, just effective questioning.

How do you think we should get intel from a captured prisioner?
Is it OK to detain and question known enemy leaders ?

Again, it depends on the President's definition of torture, doesn't it?
I think most Americans would define torture far short of the definition in
the Yoo/Bybee memo.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

And consider this, if the interrogation methods aren't legal, then there is
a very good chance that the evidence obtained is not legal. Clearly, the
14 prisoners being transferred to Guantanamo are very dangerous. It would
be a terrible injustice if this administration's bungling allows them to
escape justice.

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:43:30 -0700, Joe wrote:


agreeded what's your problem? The president said he did not approve
torture.
I do not endorse torture, just effective questioning.

How do you think we should get intel from a captured prisioner?
Is it OK to detain and question known enemy leaders ?

Again, it depends on the President's definition of torture, doesn't it?
I think most Americans would define torture far short of the definition in
the Yoo/Bybee memo.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

And consider this, if the interrogation methods aren't legal, then there is
a very good chance that the evidence obtained is not legal. Clearly, the
14 prisoners being transferred to Guantanamo are very dangerous. It would
be a terrible injustice if this administration's bungling allows them to
escape justice.

Bwahahahahahaha...FN pussies. I hear the fat one with Bobspirts back
hair starting ratting on his mate's after 2 min of water boarding. Man
o man I've been tortured worse becoming a shellback. Been more sleep
deprived running crewboats..

My Brother was into Sea & Air rescue and has been thru the Navy pilots
POW program in florida and they make the methods mentioned in your
pansy memo look like kindergarden recess.

Why do you call yourself Thunder if you are such a pussy?
Change yor name to wimper.

Joe

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 15:25:05 -0700, Joe wrote:


Bwahahahahahaha...FN pussies. I hear the fat one with Bobspirts back
hair starting ratting on his mate's after 2 min of water boarding. Man
o man I've been tortured worse becoming a shellback. Been more sleep
deprived running crewboats..

My Brother was into Sea & Air rescue and has been thru the Navy pilots
POW program in florida and they make the methods mentioned in your
pansy memo look like kindergarden recess.

Why do you call yourself Thunder if you are such a pussy?
Change yor name to wimper.

Joe

LOL, everybody is a tough guy on the internet. This country is still a
country of laws. You get your choice, play by those laws and the bad guys
get convicted and put away. Step outside those laws, and the bad guys may
get to go and play with bin Missin'. Secret evidence, hearsay evidence,
retroactive interrogation methods just don't get it. Since you haven't
been paying attention, I'll point out that the Supreme Court has handed
this administration several recent setbacks. There may well be more to
come.

1- torture is evil
2- People who torture others are evil
3- People who order others to commit torture are evil


Joe wrote:
agreeded what's your problem? The president said he did not approve
torture.

In that case, he either lied or else is criminally clueless
about what goes on in his chain of command. Rumsfeld has
officially said yes to torture, as has Attorny General Gonzales.


I do not endorse torture, just effective questioning.


OK so ttell us the difference.


How do you think we should get intel from a captured prisioner?

By means other than torture.


Is it OK to detain and question known enemy leaders ?


That depends on what you mean by "known enemy leaders." What
if the Democrats win an election due to all these Republican
screw-ups, and you get tagged as an enemy of the state
because of your constant political posturing here? Wanna get
hog-tied upside-down over a bathtub of ice water? Hey you
say it's not so bad.





5- Torture very often goes wrong, such as when some "OGA
guys" killed one of the Al-Queda #2 men they captured before
he could reveal anything. Apparently had a weak heart or
something. Oh well.


Yeah oh well....to bad......so sad.

Well? Your whole premise is to get info.

It FAILED can you understand that? A big failure since this
guy was so high up in the organization.

Maybe you think failure to protect the US from terrorist
threats is OK?



.... BTW if your going to wage war and
get captured you should make sure your heart is up to it.


You don't seem to get it Joe... the issue is not the death
of an enemy, the issue is 1- our moral stature and 2-
FAILURE to get info.

We agree on the moral issue, the only question is why you
want the US to become an evil dictatorial regime. I am
pointing out to you the FAILURE of your idealized meethods.
Do you think it's perfectly OK to fail at protecting
America, as long as you do it in a macho brutal way?




Yeah I'm sure if the tower was taken down in LA, and 1000's died, you
would be all over Bush saying why diden't you do everything you could
to prevent it?

Personally, I think that's a fantasy.

We know that President Bush and his cabinet put a very low
priority on terrorism and did almost nothing to stop the
Sept 11th attack. That is a real failure.

We know that President Bush pulled troops out of the hunt
for Osama Bin Laden in order to stage the invasion of Iraq.
That is another real failure.




And here's the one that matters.

Would you use extreme questioning (" torture" to you Lilly Bural
winnies) techniques on Abu Zubaydah to save 1000 Americans from getting
murdered?


Nope. Wouldn't even think about it.

Your problem (one of them, anyway) is that you cannot accept
responsibility for your own actions, and you apparently
cannot assign responsibility to others for theirs.

DSK wrote:
1- torture is evil
2- People who torture others are evil
3- People who order others to commit torture are evil


Joe wrote:
agreeded what's your problem? The president said he did not approve
torture.

In that case, he either lied or else is criminally clueless
about what goes on in his chain of command. Rumsfeld has
officially said yes to torture, as has Attorny General Gonzales.

Well Gonzales is just a dumb beaner who hates gringos, and rummie's


I do not endorse torture, just effective questioning.


OK so ttell us the difference.

Torture involves pain, and permanent damage to the body or mind.


How do you think we should get intel from a captured prisioner?

By means other than torture.

Your the expert it seems, since you have judged and convicted the
torturing mob thats abusing Ossama's boy's.

Come on expert...tell us about the effective "other means" not pie in
the sky rightious bull****.

What works Doug? This time try not to be so vague



Is it OK to detain and question known enemy leaders ?


That depends on what you mean by "known enemy leaders."

Guy's who planned and or killed 1000's of Americans in war.

What
if the Democrats win an election due to all these Republican
screw-ups, and you get tagged as an enemy of the state
because of your constant political posturing here? Wanna get
hog-tied upside-down over a bathtub of ice water? Hey you
say it's not so bad.


never will happen, yu seem to think captured terrorist deserve the same
rights and protection as citizens of the USA.

But if it did.....I guess we will have a war and kill all the dems who
want to torture American citizens. It's common knowledge republican's
and independents have better weapons than democarts.




5- Torture very often goes wrong, such as when some "OGA
guys" killed one of the Al-Queda #2 men they captured before
he could reveal anything. Apparently had a weak heart or
something. Oh well.


Yeah oh well....to bad......so sad.

Well? Your whole premise is to get info.

It FAILED can you understand that? A big failure since this
guy was so high up in the organization.

Failed in your fairly land dream, but it seems to be working in the
real world. We now have an excellent understanding of Al- Queda and
have taken down most for the key planners of 9-11




Maybe you think failure to protect the US from terrorist
threats is OK?


Maybe not.




.... BTW if your going to wage war and
get captured you should make sure your heart is up to it.


You don't seem to get it Joe... the issue is not the death
of an enemy, the issue is 1- our moral stature and 2-
FAILURE to get info.

We agree on the moral issue, the only question is why you
want the US to become an evil dictatorial regime.

Who said I'd like that?


I am
pointing out to you the FAILURE of your idealized meethods.

I know, you the expert on preventing future attacks, but havent
provided one clue on how to do it, other than the "Evil Bush Ragime"
way.





Yeah I'm sure if the tower was taken down in LA, and 1000's died, you
would be all over Bush saying why diden't you do everything you could
to prevent it?

Personally, I think that's a fantasy.

Thats your problem...I think it's real and was prevented.

We know that President Bush and his cabinet put a very low
priority on terrorism and did almost nothing to stop the
Sept 11th attack. That is a real failure.

Clinton did it.



We know that President Bush pulled troops out of the hunt
for Osama Bin Laden in order to stage the invasion of Iraq.
That is another real failure.




And here's the one that matters.

Would you use extreme questioning (" torture" to you Lilly Bural
winnies) techniques on Abu Zubaydah to save 1000 Americans from getting
murdered?


Nope. Wouldn't even think about it.

Your problem (one of them, anyway) is that you cannot accept
responsibility for your own actions, and you apparently
cannot assign responsibility to others for theirs.

Responsibility for my own actions. Doug first I've been in the
military, second I've been a merchat Marine master for 10 yrs, and I
own my one business and have employees
Never taken a welfare buk in my life, And I'm the one responsable for
success or failure in all my endevors. I know what being responable is.

I'm sure as long as a republican is in office people like you will run
around and screaming the sky is falling, ignoring all the good news,
like no attacks on the USA in 5 yrs.

It FAILED can you understand that? A big failure since this
guy was so high up in the organization.


Joe wrote:
Failed in your fairly land dream, but it seems to be working in the
real world.

In what "fairy land dream world" did the Bush Administration
prevent an "attack killing 1000s" in LA?


... We now have an excellent understanding of Al- Queda and
have taken down most for the key planners of 9-11


Except for the ones we let go because President Bush wanted
to send those troops somewhere else.

Bottom line: did not prevent terrorist attacks
Has not captured Osama Bin Laden

All your excuses and fairy tales do not change the basic
facts, Joe.



Maybe you think failure to protect the US from terrorist
threats is OK?



Maybe not.


That's exactly what happened, ans you seem to be OK with
it... in fact you seem to want to invite more attacks just
so you can prove how tough you are.

Smart!



We agree on the moral issue, the only question is why you
want the US to become an evil dictatorial regime.


Who said I'd like that?


You agree that torture is evil and you want our gov't to
torture people. Most gov'ts in history that have openly
practiced torture are dictatorial.



I know, you the expert on preventing future attacks, but havent
provided one clue on how to do it, other than the "Evil Bush Ragime"
way.



Actually I have several times, you just don't seem to be
getting it.


Yeah I'm sure if the tower was taken down in LA, and 1000's died, you
would be all over Bush saying why diden't you do everything you could
to prevent it?

Personally, I think that's a fantasy.

Thats your problem...I think it's real and was prevented.


That doesn't make it real.


We know that President Bush and his cabinet put a very low
priority on terrorism and did almost nothing to stop the
Sept 11th attack. That is a real failure.


Clinton did it.


Oh yeah, everything bad is Clinton's fault. Funny thing,
it's still Clinton's fault (the economy, the terrorism, the
low esteem for the US in other countries) even after 6 years
of things getting worse.



Your problem (one of them, anyway) is that you cannot accept
responsibility for your own actions, and you apparently
cannot assign responsibility to others for theirs.


Responsibility for my own actions. Doug first I've been in the
military, second I've been a merchat Marine master for 10 yrs, and I
own my one business and have employees

Then why are you blaming everybody else for your problems?


Never taken a welfare buk in my life

Which means what, exactly? Lots of famous people like Rush
Limbaugh have been on welfare at one time in their lives.




I'm sure as long as a republican is in office people like you will run
around and screaming the sky is falling, ignoring all the good news,
like no attacks on the USA in 5 yrs.


There were no attacks on the US in the 5 years before,
either. If a Republican in charge means everything is going
OK then why are we discussing a ridiculous failure of a war
that was started on a premise of lies, and whether or not
torturing prisoners would make Americans safer from
terrorism? If Republican = success than we wouldn't have
these problems, unless you have a very odd definition of
success.

Frankly I don't care if the President (or other important
elected officials) are Republican or Democratic... I do care
if they're leading the country deeper into evil policies and
a cycle of lies & failure.

DSK

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006 14:28:15 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:

Brigadier General James Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines,
said no civilized country should deny a defendant the right to see the
evidence against him, and that the United States "should not be the
first."

This is a question on which General Walker has no greater expertise than you
or I. Lawyers, whether military or otherwise, are supposed to be experts on
what the law is, not what it should be.

Give me a break. He's on the front lines of the issue. He certainly is
more qualified than either of us to render an opinion.

What facts does he know, which we don't, that makes him uniquely qualified
to decide what the law in this area should be?

My god, you don't know???

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave wrote:


So I take it you're advocating an invasion of Pakistan?

Yes. I think that would be a heck of lot more appropriate than
invading Iraq. They're certainly no friend of ours.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Pervez Musharraf might take issue with that. He's been one of our most
proactive allies in the war on terror.

By agreeing not to attack the terrorists and letting them have a
secure base of operations? With those kind of friends.....



--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article , OzOne wrote:

I've always thought that wars should be fought by the leaders of each
country involved, after all they're the ones who declared it.....or
not in the case of Iraq.


I think there was a movie like that... both sides chose one person,
and they fought it out on an island. I can't remember the details.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com