Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#171
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#173
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#174
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#175
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#176
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know "plonk"
|
#177
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#178
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#179
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#180
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Way OT, but a "cold war" question. who were the "Pinkos?" | General | |||
"Jeffrey Boyd" is an anagram of "Midget Runt" in Japanese | ASA | |||
Battery with "Double the Power" or that takes up "Half the Space" | ASA | |||
Marinco 15 Amp "Marine Grade" 120VAC Receptical v. Leviton "terrestrial grade" | Boat Building |