Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#181
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#182
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know "plonk"
|
#183
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#184
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#185
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 ---- |
#186
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#187
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#188
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#189
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#190
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|