BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   Cruising (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/)
-   -   Yeah, I know "plonk" (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/103065-yeah-i-know-plonk.html)

Marty[_2_] March 11th 09 02:13 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
Dave wrote:
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.



Dave, I don't know why you can't just come out and say what you mean
rather than being so obtuse.

So far the best I've seen from you has been limited to one word
rejoinders, like "No" and "wrong", with a few ad hominems thrown in,
followed by accusing others of failing to proffer a cogent argument, all
the while failing to offer the same.

And this from a man claiming to have written a definitive tract on
cogent argumentation.....

Cheers
Martin

Capt. JG March 11th 09 03:01 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
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)



It's not just a moral question. Sorry. It's a practical one on several
levels. Not only does it not work it works against the country that condones
or uses it. This latter practicality is one that the previous administration
ignored much to our detriment.

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




Capt. JG March 11th 09 03:02 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
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)



That's what they used for the "mastermind" of 9/11 or so they claimed. He
gave lots of information, most of it false. The previous adminstration
touted it as "essential" in "preventing" additional attacks. A load of crap.



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




[email protected] March 11th 09 03:17 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On 10 Mar 2009 15:59:09 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:39:27 -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.


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


So in your view he offered no resistance at all? What is the basis of that
conclusion?


That's your statement, not mine.


[email protected] March 11th 09 03:18 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On 10 Mar 2009 16:07:21 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:39:54 -0400, said:

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?


Nope. Pretty much aced it. But even you, with your limited math background,
should be able to do a text search and find the first question mark in the
text above.


Looks like you flunked a lot more than math. We aren't lookibg for
question marks. We are looking for a response. I guess you really
don't have one. Guess what? You are a lousy tap dancer, too.


[email protected] March 11th 09 03:21 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:06:36 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

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.



I'm sure other countries will keep that in mind as they torture our
soldiers.


[email protected] March 11th 09 04:41 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 


Dave wrote:
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.


Uhmmm, context: Liberty, Amendment: 14th, as in deprivation of "...Life,
liberty, or property..." without due process. Clearly, contextual
recognition is also not your strong suit. Putz.

Keith

Marty[_2_] March 11th 09 04:51 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
wrote:


Dave wrote:
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.


Uhmmm, context: Liberty, Amendment: 14th, as in deprivation of "...Life,
liberty, or property..." without due process. Clearly, contextual
recognition is also not your strong suit. Putz.



Kieth, unfortunately, Dave appears to be one of those who believes that
the US Constitution should not apply to non citizens, even if they are
being incarcerated by the US; while at the same time the US government
is trying to impose the same principles espoused in the Constitution, at
the point of a gun to very country(s) where said non-US citizens where
abducted from... I am certain that I am not the only one who perceives
the hypocrisy of this stance.

Cheers
Martin

[email protected] March 11th 09 05:02 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:

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.


There's no denying that the interpretation of "cruel and unusual" is
open to disagreement, as is the range of actions that constitute
"torture". The point, however, is that "torture", through national and
international law, and convention, is illegal. The statement that "some
forms of *torture* are acceptable" obviates any discussion of what
actions constitutes "torture". Any action that qualifies, under
currently accepted definitions, as "torture" is illegal. To be
"acceptable", an action must be defended as being "not-torture", not
'well, it's torture, but it's OK torture'.

And I wholeheartedly agree with your earlier premise re. the hypocrisy
much of the non-US world now see in our pronouncements about the human
rights abuses of other countries. Hopefully that will change somewhat
in the next several years.

Keith

Vic Smith March 11th 09 05:07 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:02:48 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:



That's what they used for the "mastermind" of 9/11 or so they claimed. He
gave lots of information, most of it false. The previous adminstration
touted it as "essential" in "preventing" additional attacks. A load of crap.


You can't prove that. They destroyed the interrogation tapes.
A few months after 9-11 the feds in Chicago prevented a major attack
on America when they nabbed a terrorist. I recall that Bush touted
this arrest in a speech about how he was "keeping us safe" but I won't
try to prove it . You can believe it or not.
I think I read the account in the Trib, but won't swear to it.
Here's a pretty accurate description of the terrorist and how he was
apprehended. You want closer, get the official files and newspaper
accounts.
The terrorist was a 40 some year-old wino with a name like Jimmy Bob
Baker.
Not sure, but probably originally a Smokey Mountain cracker who came
to Chicago when he got his ass kicked too many times in Tennessee.
Used to be a lot of these southern winos here on Madison Street and
Uptown. They actually blended in well with the American Indian drunks
in the same places. Cherokee blood maybe.
Jimmy Bob was in the drunk tank and told another drunk "I'll blow them
****ers to hell."
The other drunk ratted this threat out to the cops, who brought in the
feds from the Chicago FBI office.
They had located a terrorist. Damn Sam!
A fed was put in the cell with Jimmy Bob to "infiltrate" the terrorist
organization. I'd like to talk to that fed. Must be a hell of a guy,
since I even have a hard time getting close to drunk crackers, and I
can play a pretty good low-life. Maybe he brought a bottle.
I haven't seen any actual transcripts about this sting operation, but
the article I read said it played out as follows.
The "infiltrated" fed found out Jimmy Bob didn't really have a target
for his "blow them ****ers to hell" comment, so together they worked
out one that Jimmy Bob agreed would be a good one.
Might have been the Dirksen federal building. What drunk likes feds?
The undercover fed found out Jimmy Bob had no source for explosives.
No problem. The fed gave him a source. Another fed of course.
The fed found out Jimmy Bob had no money.
Aw, hell, he could lend him some money.
So Jimmy Bob gets released from the drunk tank after his 3-day stay,
and the terrorist plot gets in high gear.
Dangerous move letting this madman loose?
No, because the feds were ready. Most of the Chicago FBI office
manpower was on his tail, protecting us.
They were hoping for leads to get deeper into Jimmy Bob's "terrorist
cell," so teams were on him 24 hours a day.
BTW, this is the REAL 24 hours, not the TV bull****.
It irritated the feds following Jimmy Bob, because of the bus exhaust.
Yeah, Jimmy Bob rode the CTA. No Aston-Martins for him.
His first stop was interesting.
A liquor store.
Anyway, you get the picture.
The feds hauled him in after a few days, tired of sucking bus exhaust
I suppose, and just charged him with........Terrorism.
Don't recall if he ever made contact with explosives fed who was fed
to him by the drunk tank fed.
And I don't know what happened to him in the end.
Maybe he's at Gitmo.
Jimmy Bob Baker. Madison Street Wino Terrorist.
We can all be grateful GWB kept us safe from the likes of a terrorist
like him. Probably saved thousands of lives. Maybe millions.

--Vic


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com