Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On 10 Mar 2009 15:17:14 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:07:21 -0400, said:

On 10 Mar 2009 13:37:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:09:29 -0400, said:

I remember that topic's being a subject of considerable discussion
immediately following the Korean War. Urging that captured soldiers not
resist was at that time a distinctly minority position. Is that currently
the position of the US Army?

McCain obviously thought so.

So you're buying the NV tale that McCain's stay at the Hanoi Hilton was
simply a pleasant vacation?

Not what I said, or even implied.

So precisely what did you intend to imply about McCain by your statement?

Start by reading what YOU wrote, and then my reply.

I remember that topic's being a subject of considerable discussion
immediately following the Korean War. Urging that captured soldiers not
resist was at that time a distinctly minority position. Is that currently
the position of the US Army?


McCain obviously thought so.

Rather than resist, McCain capitulated and made anti-American
statements. He must have thought that was the thing to do.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On 10 Mar 2009 15:30:12 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:09:01 -0400, said:

On 10 Mar 2009 13:37:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:15:33 -0400, said:

Are you denying that Congress in 2006 provided the retroactive legal
protection I described?

I said:

"Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the
United States Government."

To which you replied:

"A gross distortion"

At which point, I suggested that you are all wet and don't know what
you are babbling about.

Did you check again? Did the US government prosecute people for using
waterboarding?

You answer my question, and I'll answer yours.

I think we should take issues in the order they were raised. Unless,
of course, you can't for some reason...

I think we should take the questions in the order they were asked.

After you....

So you flunked math, too?

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:39:24 -0700, said:

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:15:34 -0700, said:

Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in
that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried
for
a crime.

I asked earlier which law school you received a degree from.

And speaking of using misdirection in lieu of substantive debate...

Since you obviously haven't a clue, let me give you a hint. Start with the
right amendment.

You could start with the 5th, but you'd end with the 14th anyway.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:27:40 -0700 (PDT), said:

Dave wrote:
A classic straw man argument. A pity you can't read more carefully, Doug. If
you could you would realize that I have neither advocated nor opposed
waterboarding in any of the above discussion. I have simply pointed out the
fallacy of sticking a label like "torture" on it as a substitute for
reasoned discussion.

So, calling torture "torture" is a substitute for reasoned discussion?

Calling waterboarding "torture" is definitely not an adequate substitute for
reasoned discussion. It's simply trying to attach a label in the hope that
substantive discussion will be foreclosed.

Finally, you come out with a concrete position. Unfortunately most of
the world considers drowning followed by revival, repeat as necessary,
to be torture.

Why do you find that so difficult to grasp?

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:03:23 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

So, but this logic, the US gov't should sanction techniques just like
those
Germany carried out?

Ah, another straw man.


Twasn't mine strawman...


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:03:23 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 20:05:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

And, it's well-documented that it doesn't work.

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
I would disagree with you.

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.


In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.


Oh, I don't think so.

Crime confessions obtained by torture, where the primary proof of
guilt is the confession, doesn't make the info accurate. Only that you
punished somebody for a crime. That covers the Russian incident you
refer to...

No, I believe that it proves the point; that the Russians were able
through "torture", perhaps being sleep deprivation and starvation
combined with long interrogations, were able to "convince" people to
publicly confess to crimes that the individuals concerned must have
known would result in their execution.


As for the Nazis, well they may have caught some partisans by using
info gained by torture, but they did not eradicate the Resistance...
in fact the Resistance grew steadily. And in the end, who won

You are taking a rather long ranged view, perhaps far fetched. The
Germans were able to identify other members of a specific group, which
I suspect was their immediate aim.

So yeah, the evidence seems very strong that torture doesn't work....
thanks Bruce!

DSK

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


So, but this logic, the US gov't should sanction techniques just like those
Germany carried out?

Why do you persist in misunderstanding?

I was replying specifically to the statement "And, it's
well-documented that it doesn't work."

The question of whether to apply the technique is primarily a moral
one that I do not propose to address as it is an extremely complex
subject.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:20:44 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:22:43 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

I suggest that the meaning is cruel punishments and also unusual
punishments.

I happen to have a book on the subject of execution of death sentences
by hanging. It was well into the nineteenth century before hangmen
started using the long drop, one which breaks the neck, so that the
body doesn't thrash around, neater that way. This also shuts off the
blood flow to the brain, causing immediate loss of consciousness.
On the other hand, the good old short drop took about twenty minutes
to kill, as the air was not shut off completely. Certainly cruel, but
it was the usual method. The condemned at Nuremburg were killed
indoors, on a portable gallows that was supposed to be set up over a
hole in the ground. Those *******s got the short drop.

If what I read is correct hanging was very much a spectacle in
England. Crowds of people, bets taken on how long the hangee would
last, speeches from the gibbet, a real outing.

Hanging was invented to be less cruel than boiling in oil or breaking
on the wheel. It achieved that at least.

The state of Utah used to offer the choice of hanging or shooting,
Nobody ever picked hanging.

Casady
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:15:34 -0700, wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 19:05:49 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Let's look at it this way:

The prohibition is against "cruel and unusual punishment." It can be either
cruel OR unusual, but not both. As long as we do it all the time, it's not
unusual at all, and so therefore we can be as cruel as we like.

Winning hearts and minds, one at a time.

I suggest that the meaning is cruel punishments and also unusual
punishments.
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Well, for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct (though
doubtful) that the punishment must be *both* cruel and unusual to be
covered by the 8th amendment. "Torture" is illegal in the US, and in
international law. By definition, "torture" is cruel, and since it is
outlawed worldwide in international law and treaty, it cannot, by
definition be considered "usual", and therefore violates the 8th as you
interpret it. Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in
that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried for
a crime.

You can make an argument about whether any given action *constitutes*
torture, but you cannot make a rational argument that there are
"acceptable forms of torture" within any legal framework.

Keith


As the term, which was first used in England in 1689, was originally
used as a ban for punishments that were considered cruel or unusual.
Examples - flogging around the fleet which actually constituted being
flogged to death, being torn apart by either the rack or wheel,
hanging, drawing and quartering, and so on.

I believe that the first U.S. definition of the term was
In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), when the Supreme Court
commented that drawing and quartering, public dissecting, burning
alive, or disemboweling would constitute cruel and unusual punishment
regardless of the crime.

The reference to torture, in U.S. law was, I believe, added at some
later date although I do not have a specific date.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:07:12 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 21:36:09 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.

The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from
whole cloth.

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.

Cheers,

Bruce

People being people, Bruce is exactly correct. With some people, the mere
suggestion that they might experience some discomfort will be enough to get
them to spill their guts, tell everything they know, and sell all their
compatriots down the river.

Yes, even thiose who don't know anything will confess! Often in great
detail.


Actually, I doubt that any interrogators are inclined to believe any
unsupported statement made under "torture" whatever the definition.

At least the only statement I have read about the U.S. efforts seems
to say that they get a bit of information from "A" which correlates
with information from "B" which fits with NSA intercepts from "C" and
so on. As I remember the article, which said that after OBama was
fully briefed about the CIA activities he might change his mind,
refereed to correlation of information from as far afield as Thailand,
the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan and Spain.


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:14:12 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

You could start with the 5th, but you'd end with the 14th anyway.

Here's a hint for another clueless sea lawyer.

We are talking about actions by the federal government.

Personally, I was talking about all government agencies, both State and
Federal. In any event, when it comes to "Due Process," it doesn't pay to
leave out any Constitutional protection, as one never knows which one the
Court will agree with.

"Clueless sea lawyer." Funny stuff. You make that up yourself?