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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

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

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

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

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

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

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

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

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!

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

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 ----

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

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

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"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.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"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.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

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

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

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

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

wrote in message
...
On 11 Mar 2009 11:31:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:12:50 -0400, said:

Not as complicated as that. Hornbook law. The 14th Amendment applies to
States, not to the federal government.

I give up. Which states are not part of the United States?

Not sure whether I should recommend you read a basic civics book, or a
grammar book. Which part of "federal government" do you not understand?

I'm waiting for you to tell me which states are not covered by the
14th amendment.



I can answer! Gitmo! Oh wait....

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

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:05:12 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

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

When I make a word do a lot of work like that, I always pay it extra.

(With apologies to Lewis Carroll)

Very cute, but apropos of what I have no idea. Do you have a problem with
irony?

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
I believe in the moral high ground of doing what is right over and above
any conflicting laws.

Stephen

So we should be "A Nation of Laws," unless those laws get in our way.
Gotcha.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:59:10 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:05:12 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

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

When I make a word do a lot of work like that, I always pay it extra.

(With apologies to Lewis Carroll)

Very cute, but apropos of what I have no idea.

More's the pity.

But no doubt at least one or two people got the allusion.

Ya, far be it from you to actually make a clear point. When you insist on
inscrutability, you can claim to be far more intelligent than those who
can't decypher your personal code. "Claim," of course, being the key word.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:11:20 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

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.

I assume that remark is made tongue in cheek.

You assume incorrectly. I really would like to know your view.

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:59:10 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:05:12 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Those who believe that waterboarding is not torture should be submitted
to
it until they change their minds.
When I make a word do a lot of work like that, I always pay it extra.

(With apologies to Lewis Carroll)
Very cute, but apropos of what I have no idea.
More's the pity.

But no doubt at least one or two people got the allusion.

Ya, far be it from you to actually make a clear point. When you insist on
inscrutability, you can claim to be far more intelligent than those who
can't decypher your personal code. "Claim," of course, being the key word.




Well, when it comes to Dave's aphorisms, Alice in Wonderland provides a
reasonable contextual background.

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...

Well, when it comes to Dave's aphorisms, Alice in Wonderland provides a
reasonable contextual background.

Cheers
Martin

He does seem the type who would play croquet with hedgehogs.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:54:37 -0400, Marty said:

Well, when it comes to Dave's aphorisms, Alice in Wonderland provides a
reasonable contextual background.

Close, but no cigar. It's from Through the Looking-glass.

You should know, Mr. Dumpty.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:51:33 -0400, Marty said:

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.
I assume that remark is made tongue in cheek.
You assume incorrectly. I really would like to know your view.

My view is that labeling something "torture" is not going to advance the
discussion. What specific interrogation method or methods do you wish to
discuss?

Now you truly are being obtuse. I'm not labeling anything, the question
is quite clear, I'll repeat it:

"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. " That is reasonable clear prose, I am
not asking you to define what is or is not torture.

Cheers
Martin