Marty wrote:
wrote:


Dave wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:39:24 -0700, said:

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

No, you certainly are not the only one. Bruce made the same observation
much earlier in this thread. I am hopeful that we can change this
perception - by changing our actions - over the next several years.
We'll see.

One of the scariest, and most depressing things I've witnessed in this
country was not long after 9/11, while working to build a facility to
manufacture a new stockpile of smallpox vaccine for the government, was
a news program where 2 liberal and 2 conservative national journalists
were asked if it was OK to torture suspects *if* it *might* save
American lives. All 4 said the equivalent of "hell yes!". I was
sickened, saddened, and ashamed that we could, as a nation, be such
gutless wimps that any action against the *other* (however defined)
person is justifiable if there's even the slightest chance that it
*might* save our butts. Pitiful.

Keith

wrote:

One of the scariest, and most depressing things I've witnessed in this
country was not long after 9/11, while working to build a facility to
manufacture a new stockpile of smallpox vaccine for the government, was
a news program where 2 liberal and 2 conservative national journalists
were asked if it was OK to torture suspects *if* it *might* save
American lives. All 4 said the equivalent of "hell yes!". I was
sickened, saddened, and ashamed that we could, as a nation, be such
gutless wimps that any action against the *other* (however defined)
person is justifiable if there's even the slightest chance that it
*might* save our butts. Pitiful.

Yeah, who are we anyway? Our lives are pitiful and worth nothing! How
dare we threaten, scare or hurt someone who is trying to hurt and kill
us?? We're not worth it!!!! We should protect murderous criminals
instead of trying to save our butts!!!

Stephen

To all you armchair lawyers, you don't know Jack if you ain't been there!
Is it torture if you ask Charlie a question and when he won't answer,
you push his comrade out the helo door at a 1000 feet and then ask him
again?
Ever wonder why there was only highly rated US prisoners in N Nam?
Ever wonder why there was no gook prisoners taken in S Nam?
Are snipers unusual and cruel?
No Jap prisoners on the islands in WW11? Why?
Let's face it. War is war and when your ass is on the line, anything
goes!
Waterboarding is child's play! It is designed to scare, not torture
or maim.
Gordon

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:07:44 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

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

Drunk Tank=Sleeper Cell!

Gordon wrote:
To all you armchair lawyers, you don't know Jack if you ain't been there!
Is it torture if you ask Charlie a question and when he won't answer,
you push his comrade out the helo door at a 1000 feet and then ask him
again?
Ever wonder why there was only highly rated US prisoners in N Nam?
Ever wonder why there was no gook prisoners taken in S Nam?
Are snipers unusual and cruel?
No Jap prisoners on the islands in WW11? Why?
Let's face it. War is war and when your ass is on the line, anything
goes!
Waterboarding is child's play! It is designed to scare, not torture or
maim.
Gordon


I would suggest you read the United Nations Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The US is a signatory to this convention, ratified under Reagan.

Then you could go on and read about the United Nation Committee against
Torture, the US is a member. The produced a document called the
Istanbul Protocol, you might want to read that.

The fact that the US routinely thumbs it's nose at this treaty while at
the same time claiming the umbrella of UN Sanction and Resolution
violation as grounds for laying waste to an entire country does almost
irreparable damage to the US international image.

Drowning people is not child's play, it is in fact not particularly
unusual to kill the subject while "playing".

Cheers
Martin
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:49:55 -0400, Marty said:

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?

Unfortunately, you fall into the same trap as Doug. The issue is not whether
the proper label has been attached to waterboarding. It's whether the use of
that process is acceptable under some circumstances. Labels do not help in
answering that question.


Well, at least we've finally nailed down what it is that you're arguing
about. Now, do you think it is, or isn't acceptable, in some
situations? Torture that is.

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:08:48 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

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

The phrase "sea lawyer" is a common one in the Navy. It refers to someone
who freely offers a great deal of legal advice without knowing squat about
the subject.

Duh.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:49:55 -0400, Marty said:

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?

Unfortunately, you fall into the same trap as Doug. The issue is not
whether
the proper label has been attached to waterboarding. It's whether the use
of
that process is acceptable under some circumstances. Labels do not help in
answering that question.

Those who believe that waterboarding is not torture should be submitted to
it until they change their minds.

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:21:19 -0700, said:

One of the scariest, and most depressing things I've witnessed in this
country was not long after 9/11

One of the scariest, and most depressing things I've witnessed in this
country was watching the collapse of the Twin Towers from my office window.
I wasn't close enough to see the people jumping from windows, however.

A comparison on par with saying that the Pearl Harbor attack was the
scariest, most depressing thing you'd seen, in response to a statement
about the US surrendering to Japan out of fear (yes, a hypothetical).
Good job.

Keith

Stephen Trapani wrote:
wrote:

One of the scariest, and most depressing things I've witnessed in this
country was not long after 9/11, while working to build a facility to
manufacture a new stockpile of smallpox vaccine for the government,
was a news program where 2 liberal and 2 conservative national
journalists were asked if it was OK to torture suspects *if* it
*might* save American lives. All 4 said the equivalent of "hell
yes!". I was sickened, saddened, and ashamed that we could, as a
nation, be such gutless wimps that any action against the *other*
(however defined) person is justifiable if there's even the slightest
chance that it *might* save our butts. Pitiful.

Yeah, who are we anyway?

We claim to be a nation of laws, and we claim the moral high ground on
these issues in our dealings with the rest of the world.

Our lives are pitiful and worth nothing!

Not even remotely implied by *any* argument presented here. Feel free
to associate yourself with that remark if you like.

How dare we threaten, scare or hurt someone who is trying to hurt and kill
us?? We're not worth it!!!! We should protect murderous criminals
instead of trying to save our butts!!!

Murderous criminals who have not been even charged with a crime because
of lack of evidence? Face it Stephen, no matter how enamored or torture
you may be, it is illegal. Write your representatives and ask them to
introduce legislation legalizing torture because it's the only way to
keep you safe - see how successful you are.

Keith