Was Waterboarding Worth It?

[CRStar]

I think one thing worse than water boarding is forcing them to have sex with Nancy Pelosi....I think for a man, it's a fate worse than death......EWWWWWWW

 

[QUENTIN]

Torture - and the abdication of laws, values, and morals that inherently come with it - is never worth it.

Are you angry that Obama might have used intelligence obtained through torture to have OBL killed?

I don't believe it's true that he did. As Matthew Alexander, the individual responsible for getting the information that directly led to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the #2 target in the GWOT, and the person who has performed more interrogations of enemy combatants and high value detainees than anyone else (he has conducted over 300 interrogations personally and supervised another 1000) and who was put in charge of interrogations in Iraq following the Abu Ghraib scandal, has stressed repeatedly (in addition to many other experts who came before and since him): information gathered during torture is unreliable, not actionable, and forever taints the tortured as a valuable source of information.

Also according to Alexander, many more innocent people have been killed than saved as a result of torture.

So your premise is false. But no, even if or when torture results in good information, it is still not worth it and I'm still disgusted by its use and its practitioners. These wars are largely ideological ones in which we argue our values and civilization are better than our enemy's, when we lower ourselves to the barbaric and inhuman level of being torturers, that is no longer true and we give the enemy a bigger win than they could ever achieve on their own.

Let me ask you a question: If we raped a child in front of his father, if a group of US or foreign agents under direction of your government took turns sodomizing an 8-year-old to get his father to talk and that got him to give up the precise whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and that led directly to us killing him, would it have been worth it to you?

 

[xsited1]

Torture - and the abdication of laws, values, and morals that inherently come with it - is never worth it.

Are you angry that Obama might have used intelligence obtained through torture to have OBL killed?

I don't believe it's true that he did. As Matthew Alexander, the individual responsible for getting the information that directly led to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the #2 target in the GWOT, and the person who has performed more interrogations of enemy combatants and high value detainees that anyone else (he was conducted over 300 interrogations personally and supervised another 1000) and who was put in charge of interrogations in Iraq following the Abu Ghraib scandal has stressed repeatedly (in addition to many other experts who came before and since him): information gathered during torture is unreliable, not actionable, and forever taints the source as a valuable informational resource.

Also according to Alexander, many more innocent people have been killed than saved as a result of torture.

So your premise is false. But no, even if or when torture results in good information, it is still not worth it and I'm still disgusted by its use and its practitioners. These wars are largely ideological ones in which we argue our values and civilization is better than our enemy's, when we lower ourselves to the barbaric and inhuman level of being torturers, that is no longer true and we give the enemy a bigger win than they could ever achieve on their own.

Let me ask you a question: If we raped a child in front of his father, if a group of US or foreign agents under direction of your government took turns sodomizing an 8-year-old to get his father to talk and that got him to give up the precise whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and that led directly to us killing him, would it have been worth it to you?

I said "might." If we continue with this line of reasoning, if Obama did use information obtained using torture to kill OBL, it was not worth it and I gather that you would be upset with Obama for doing so. In fact, you might even go so far as to publicly denounce the death of OBL and the actions of Obama because of the way in which it is handled. Of course, only you know for sure.

To answer your question, "no."

 

[Wicked Jester]

Torture - and the abdication of laws, values, and morals that inherently come with it - is never worth it.

Are you angry that Obama might have used intelligence obtained through torture to have OBL killed?

I don't believe it's true that he did. As Matthew Alexander, the individual responsible for getting the information that directly led to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the #2 target in the GWOT, and the person who has performed more interrogations of enemy combatants and high value detainees that anyone else (he was conducted over 300 interrogations personally and supervised another 1000) and who was put in charge of interrogations in Iraq following the Abu Ghraib scandal has stressed repeatedly (in addition to many other experts who came before and since him): information gathered during torture is unreliable, not actionable, and forever taints the source as a valuable informational resource.

Also according to Alexander, many more innocent people have been killed than saved as a result of torture.

So your premise is false. But no, even if or when torture results in good information, it is still not worth it and I'm still disgusted by its use and its practitioners. These wars are largely ideological ones in which we argue our values and civilization is better than our enemy's, when we lower ourselves to the barbaric and inhuman level of being torturers, that is no longer true and we give the enemy a bigger win than they could ever achieve on their own.

Let me ask you a question: If we raped a child in front of his father, if a group of US or foreign agents under direction of your government took turns sodomizing an 8-year-old to get his father to talk and that got him to give up the precise whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and that led directly to us killing him, would it have been worth it to you?

No, not torturing him, and waterboarding him instead would suffice.

 

[TheBrain]

Torture - and the abdication of laws, values, and morals that inherently come with it - is never worth it.

Are you angry that Obama might have used intelligence obtained through torture to have OBL killed?

I don't believe it's true that he did. As Matthew Alexander, the individual responsible for getting the information that directly led to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the #2 target in the GWOT, and the person who has performed more interrogations of enemy combatants and high value detainees than anyone else (he has conducted over 300 interrogations personally and supervised another 1000) and who was put in charge of interrogations in Iraq following the Abu Ghraib scandal, has stressed repeatedly (in addition to many other experts who came before and since him): information gathered during torture is unreliable, not actionable, and forever taints the tortured as a valuable source of information.

Also according to Alexander, many more innocent people have been killed than saved as a result of torture.

So your premise is false. But no, even if or when torture results in good information, it is still not worth it and I'm still disgusted by its use and its practitioners. These wars are largely ideological ones in which we argue our values and civilization are better than our enemy's, when we lower ourselves to the barbaric and inhuman level of being torturers, that is no longer true and we give the enemy a bigger win than they could ever achieve on their own.

Let me ask you a question: If we raped a child in front of his father, if a group of US or foreign agents under direction of your government took turns sodomizing an 8-year-old to get his father to talk and that got him to give up the precise whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and that led directly to us killing him, would it have been worth it to you?

A) he's lying about torture not being affective. Of course you have to vette the information you receive, but torture works. PERIOD. The only question is an ethical one.

B) You are talking about torturing a child, not the father who has the information. No one would even consider doing that. Well, let me correct that no sane non Muslims would consider that.

 

[QUENTIN]

I said "might." If we continue with this line of reasoning, if Obama did use information obtained using torture to kill OBL, it was not worth it and I gather that you would be upset with Obama for doing so. In fact, you might even go so far as to publicly denounce the death of OBL and the actions of Obama because of the way in which it is handled. Of course, only you know for sure.

To answer your question, "no."

The first part is correct, although again I think purely hypothetical. As for denouncing the death of bin Laden, the what and the how are not the same thing. If, say, we killed bin Laden by dropping a nuclear bomb on Pakistan I wouldn't say it was a bad thing that we killed him, but that it wasn't worth it because of how we went about it. Same thing with your fantastical premise, I would be glad bin Laden was killed but denounce how we went about it if it involved torture. The ends don't justify the means. Wrong is wrong.

I see, given your no, that you agree with that at least in theory. You have your limits to what you're willing to accept in order to extract information, even life-saving information. Positive outcomes do not excuse or validate whatever methods are used to achieve them. To you, even if it led to the death of our top target, it would still be wrong and not worth it to rape a child - because raping children is simply unjustifiable, period. For me, and for most people throughout modern history and in the Western world, torture is also simply unjustifiable, period.

 

[QUENTIN]

Are you angry that Obama might have used intelligence obtained through torture to have OBL killed?

I don't believe it's true that he did. As Matthew Alexander, the individual responsible for getting the information that directly led to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the #2 target in the GWOT, and the person who has performed more interrogations of enemy combatants and high value detainees than anyone else (he has conducted over 300 interrogations personally and supervised another 1000) and who was put in charge of interrogations in Iraq following the Abu Ghraib scandal, has stressed repeatedly (in addition to many other experts who came before and since him): information gathered during torture is unreliable, not actionable, and forever taints the tortured as a valuable source of information.

Also according to Alexander, many more innocent people have been killed than saved as a result of torture.

So your premise is false. But no, even if or when torture results in good information, it is still not worth it and I'm still disgusted by its use and its practitioners. These wars are largely ideological ones in which we argue our values and civilization are better than our enemy's, when we lower ourselves to the barbaric and inhuman level of being torturers, that is no longer true and we give the enemy a bigger win than they could ever achieve on their own.

Let me ask you a question: If we raped a child in front of his father, if a group of US or foreign agents under direction of your government took turns sodomizing an 8-year-old to get his father to talk and that got him to give up the precise whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and that led directly to us killing him, would it have been worth it to you?

A) he's lying about torture not being affective. Of course you have to vette the information you receive, but torture works. PERIOD. The only question is an ethical one.

He's not. You may think he's wrong, but he's not lying. I've spoken with him at some length, seen him speak, read his book. He's quite passionate and sincere and, quite notably, his methods have proven more effective than anyone else's. He was our go-to guy in detainee interrogation and he personally interrogated the reluctant, tight-lipped high value detainee who supplied us with the information that led us right to the highest value target in the GWOT besides bin Laden. He has interrogated more captives in the war on terror than anyone else and he has never used torture or anything outside the Army Field Manual, which is also what he taught to the many interrogators he trained and supervised. He's written numerous articles on the subject including one titled "Torture Doesn't Work." I'm sure in your amateur, unprofessional opinion torture works but in the professional opinion of the best interrogation expert in the world it doesn't.

B) You are talking about torturing a child, not the father who has the information. No one would even consider doing that. Well, let me correct that no sane non Muslims would consider that.

No sane person would ever consider drowning people to get information either, but many here advocate it. The argument for torture is that the ends justify the means. That acquiring life-saving information is worth getting our hands dirty and violating ethical, moral, and legal codes. Based on that argument, if some hardened Jihadist absolutely will not break under every form of torture you try and the only way to get him to talk is to torture his family, it's worth it to rape one 8-year-old Saudi in order to save 30,000 lives. If you think that's not right, then ultimately you agree the ends don't really justify the means and it's just a question of degrees and what amount of torture you're willing to put up with. For me, it's none.

 

[QUENTIN]

Also, of course, Torture costs us American lives

Our policy of torture and abuse of prisoners has been Al Qaida’s number one recruiting tool... As the senior interrogator in Iraq for a task force charged with hunting down Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former Al Qaida leader and mass murderer, I listened time and time again to captured foreign fighters cite the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as their main reason for coming to Iraq to fight. Consider that 90 percent of the suicide bombers in Iraq are these foreign fighters and you can easily conclude that we have lost hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives because of our policy of torture and abuse. But that’s only the past.

Somewhere in the world there are other young Muslims who have joined Al Qaida because we tortured and abused prisoners. These men will certainly carry out future attacks against Americans, either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or possibly even here. And that’s not to mention numerous other Muslims who support Al Qaida, either financially or in other ways, because they are outraged that the United States tortured and abused Muslim prisoners.

 

[jeffrockit]

Torture is against everything that America stands for. I don't give a damn what it accomplishes... it is NEVER right.

We just killed OBL. Seems that is much worse than torture. Are OK with killing OBL? If so, I don't see where torture should cause you a problem. If you are not Ok with the killing, at least there is no hypocrisy with your stance against torture.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Also, of course, Torture costs us American lives

Our policy of torture and abuse of prisoners has been Al Qaida’s number one recruiting tool... As the senior interrogator in Iraq for a task force charged with hunting down Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former Al Qaida leader and mass murderer, I listened time and time again to captured foreign fighters cite the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as their main reason for coming to Iraq to fight. Consider that 90 percent of the suicide bombers in Iraq are these foreign fighters and you can easily conclude that we have lost hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives because of our policy of torture and abuse. But that’s only the past.

Somewhere in the world there are other young Muslims who have joined Al Qaida because we tortured and abused prisoners. These men will certainly carry out future attacks against Americans, either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or possibly even here. And that’s not to mention numerous other Muslims who support Al Qaida, either financially or in other ways, because they are outraged that the United States tortured and abused Muslim prisoners.

So, Mathews has hard evdence that waterboarding, not torture, is the number one recruiting tool for Al Qaeda?

Surely he must have surveys of those who were recruited.....Surely he must have conducted his own surveys of those recruited.......I mean, he must surely have the hard evidence to back up said claim.

I'll await your evidence from Mathews. His merely saying it, doesn't make it necessarily so.

And, the next time you talk to him, tell him that those scumbags could have avoided everything, too include non-torturous Waterboarding, had they simply decided not to act like barbaric Jihadi douchebags, who wantonely seek to torture and murder innocent American lives at every opportunity.

And, since the info that was obtained to find Bin Laden was said to have been a result of Waterboarding, i'm sure you will condemn Obama for using that "unreliable", so called ill gotten gains through torture, to call for Osama to be summarily executed (Assasinated, for all intensive liberal purposes), correct?

 

[xsited1]

I said "might." If we continue with this line of reasoning, if Obama did use information obtained using torture to kill OBL, it was not worth it and I gather that you would be upset with Obama for doing so. In fact, you might even go so far as to publicly denounce the death of OBL and the actions of Obama because of the way in which it is handled. Of course, only you know for sure.

To answer your question, "no."

The first part is correct, although again I think purely hypothetical. As for denouncing the death of bin Laden, the what and the how are not the same thing. If, say, we killed bin Laden by dropping a nuclear bomb on Pakistan I wouldn't say it was a bad thing that we killed him, but that it wasn't worth it because of how we went about it. Same thing with your fantastical premise, I would be glad bin Laden was killed but denounce how we went about it if it involved torture. The ends don't justify the means. Wrong is wrong.

I see, given your no, that you agree with that at least in theory. You have your limits to what you're willing to accept in order to extract information, even life-saving information. Positive outcomes do not excuse or validate whatever methods are used to achieve them. To you, even if it led to the death of our top target, it would still be wrong and not worth it to rape a child - because raping children is simply unjustifiable, period. For me, and for most people throughout modern history and in the Western world, torture is also simply unjustifiable, period.

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure I understood that you would denounce Obama if torture was used to extract information which led to the killing of OBL. Perhaps in your eyes that would be an impeachable offense.

 

[bucs90]

So, if I read correctly, and I think I did, we can conclude:

If a liberal's child was being held captive, and waterboarding would lead to info on the location, the liberal would stick to his morals and NOT use it, and just pray his child was released, but at least he wouldn't harm the rights of the person witholding information on the kidnapping.

If a liberal was in charge of stopping a major terror attack that was imminent, they'd rather many die than dare harm the rights of a non-us citizen, enemy combatant.

Do you libs know why we are sickened by you sometimes? Your Savior is enjoying the big win....that he got with Bush's gathered intell. Obama should announce that he regrets the killing of Osama, since it was the result of info gathered by torture. "Fruit of the poisonous tree" is the legal term.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Torture - and the abdication of laws, values, and morals that inherently come with it - is never worth it.

Are you angry that Obama might have used intelligence obtained through torture to have OBL killed?

I don't believe it's true that he did. As Matthew Alexander, the individual responsible for getting the information that directly led to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the #2 target in the GWOT, and the person who has performed more interrogations of enemy combatants and high value detainees than anyone else (he has conducted over 300 interrogations personally and supervised another 1000) and who was put in charge of interrogations in Iraq following the Abu Ghraib scandal, has stressed repeatedly (in addition to many other experts who came before and since him): information gathered during torture is unreliable, not actionable, and forever taints the tortured as a valuable source of information.

Also according to Alexander, many more innocent people have been killed than saved as a result of torture.

So your premise is false. But no, even if or when torture results in good information, it is still not worth it and I'm still disgusted by its use and its practitioners. These wars are largely ideological ones in which we argue our values and civilization are better than our enemy's, when we lower ourselves to the barbaric and inhuman level of being torturers, that is no longer true and we give the enemy a bigger win than they could ever achieve on their own.

Let me ask you a question: If we raped a child in front of his father, if a group of US or foreign agents under direction of your government took turns sodomizing an 8-year-old to get his father to talk and that got him to give up the precise whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and that led directly to us killing him, would it have been worth it to you?

according to yoo, yes.

 

[QUENTIN]

Also, of course, Torture costs us American lives

Our policy of torture and abuse of prisoners has been Al Qaida’s number one recruiting tool... As the senior interrogator in Iraq for a task force charged with hunting down Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former Al Qaida leader and mass murderer, I listened time and time again to captured foreign fighters cite the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as their main reason for coming to Iraq to fight. Consider that 90 percent of the suicide bombers in Iraq are these foreign fighters and you can easily conclude that we have lost hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives because of our policy of torture and abuse. But that’s only the past.

Somewhere in the world there are other young Muslims who have joined Al Qaida because we tortured and abused prisoners. These men will certainly carry out future attacks against Americans, either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or possibly even here. And that’s not to mention numerous other Muslims who support Al Qaida, either financially or in other ways, because they are outraged that the United States tortured and abused Muslim prisoners.

So, Mathews has hard evdence that waterboarding, not torture, is the number one recruiting tool for Al Qaeda?

Surely he must have surveys of those who were recruited.....Surely he must have conducted his own surveys of those recruited.......I mean, he must surely have the hard evidence to back up said claim.

I'll await your evidence from Mathews. His merely saying it, doesn't make it necessarily so.

And, the next time you talk to him, tell him that those scumbags could have avoided everything, too include non-torturous Waterboarding, had they simply decided not to act like barbaric Jihadi douchebags, who wantonely seek to torture and murder innocent American lives at every opportunity.

And, since the info that was obtained to find Bin Laden was said to have been a result of Waterboarding, i'm sure you will condemn Obama for using that "unreliable", so called ill gotten gains through torture, to call for Osama to be summarily executed (Assasinated, for all intensive liberal purposes), correct?

The goal posts...they keep moving...

You know no such empirical data exists. However no such empirical data exists to suggest there's some other recruiting tool most responsible for bringing in fighters. And no such empirical evidence exists to prove torture works either. Alexander, in his capacity as a highly respected and effective expert with more firsthand direct experience than any living American, is sharing his firsthand experience and what he learned in his role as the chief interrogator in the Iraq War.

Most soldiers don't have empirical evidence to back up their experiences either, but since they have firsthand knowledge of what they engaged in, they're more worth listening to about what it's like on the ground than a layman on his couch or a politician behind a desk.

No, his saying it doesn't necessarily make it so just like any other experienced expert's opinion isn't necessarily fact, but it's more worthwhile than the opinion of USMB poster X and there's no reason to discount or ignore it unless you just don't like what he has to say because it conflicts with your amateur, inexperienced, third-hand and second-rate opinion.

He doesn't oppose torture because he likes Jihadists and thinks they don't deserve it. He actually knows firsthand how awful they are. He opposes it because he's found it's counterproductive by every measure.

As for waterboarding leading to the capture of OBL, I just don't believe it. According to the government we haven't waterboarded anyone in years and this information was pretty new. Information gleaned from torture isn't accurate and there's no evidence to suggest that's what this was, just fantasism and people looking for a justification for why they don't believe in Western law or morality. I wouldn't have Obama or anyone else assassinated for torture if they did it though, I'd have them tried in a court for breaking the law.

I said "might." If we continue with this line of reasoning, if Obama did use information obtained using torture to kill OBL, it was not worth it and I gather that you would be upset with Obama for doing so. In fact, you might even go so far as to publicly denounce the death of OBL and the actions of Obama because of the way in which it is handled. Of course, only you know for sure.

To answer your question, "no."

The first part is correct, although again I think purely hypothetical. As for denouncing the death of bin Laden, the what and the how are not the same thing. If, say, we killed bin Laden by dropping a nuclear bomb on Pakistan I wouldn't say it was a bad thing that we killed him, but that it wasn't worth it because of how we went about it. Same thing with your fantastical premise, I would be glad bin Laden was killed but denounce how we went about it if it involved torture. The ends don't justify the means. Wrong is wrong.

I see, given your no, that you agree with that at least in theory. You have your limits to what you're willing to accept in order to extract information, even life-saving information. Positive outcomes do not excuse or validate whatever methods are used to achieve them. To you, even if it led to the death of our top target, it would still be wrong and not worth it to rape a child - because raping children is simply unjustifiable, period. For me, and for most people throughout modern history and in the Western world, torture is also simply unjustifiable, period.

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure I understood that you would denounce Obama if torture was used to extract information which led to the killing of OBL. Perhaps in your eyes that would be an impeachable offense.

Absolutely. I've denounced Obama for >50% of what he's done so far generally since he's been a terrible president. I think he's committed a ton of impeachable offenses already, including violating the Constitutional law demanding that we seek out and prosecute anyone suspected of torture. If he also authorized torture, that's certainly an impeachable and prosecutable offense. It'll never be acted on, but should be if it occurs (though again, there's no evidence this intel was gained through torture, this is just your hypothetical.)

So, if I read correctly, and I think I did, we can conclude:

If a liberal's child was being held captive, and waterboarding would lead to info on the location, the liberal would stick to his morals and NOT use it, and just pray his child was released, but at least he wouldn't harm the rights of the person witholding information on the kidnapping.

If a liberal was in charge of stopping a major terror attack that was imminent, they'd rather many die than dare harm the rights of a non-us citizen, enemy combatant.

Do you libs know why we are sickened by you sometimes? Your Savior is enjoying the big win....that he got with Bush's gathered intell. Obama should announce that he regrets the killing of Osama, since it was the result of info gathered by torture. "Fruit of the poisonous tree" is the legal term.

The problem is with your false premise. I reject the notion that "and waterboarding would lead to info on the location." People who actually know what they're talking about agree that waterboarding is not a means to extract reliable information. Like all torture, it's a means of punishment and extracting false confession. We introduce our soldiers to waterboarding at SERE training precisely because the Koreans and Vietnamese waterboarded U.S. soldiers in order to get them to renounce America and make false statements, not because we think it's an effective interrogation technique.

It's not about not harming the rights of enemy combatants, it's about holding ourselves to a higher standard. Americans should be above torture, that's why we made it illegal and condemn other countries that do it. It's barbarism that's beneath us. We shouldn't do it, not only because it's not effective, but more than that because it's immoral and lowers our national character, because it turns us into the monsters we're supposed to be fighting not mimicking.

Have you no sense of decency?

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Yes no it doesn't matter. It happened and it will happen again. Yes it was and is worth it.

 

[Jackson]

This is such a volitile subject I don't think any of us will change another's mind. But before we allow a man without a soul to take the life of an innocent through terrorism, I say waterboard the terrorist and behead him before he takes the head of an innocent.

 

[sparky]

was it worth it?

well, what are the words 'With Liberty and Justice for all' worth to you?

~S~

 

[jillian]

Let's assume for a moment that information gleaned during enhanced interrogation techniques of Al Qaeda members at Gitmo led to the killing of OBL. Was it worth it?

Years of intelligence gathering, including details gleaned from controversial interrogations of Al Qaeda members during the Bush administration, ultimately led the Navy SEALs who killed Usama bin Laden to his compound in Pakistan.

Read more: Bush-Era Interrogations Provided Key Details on Bin Laden's Location - FoxNews.com

why can't we assume we'd have gotten it sooner because it wouldn't have taken years to sort through all the falsely given info?

gotta love fox, though.

 

[asterism]

At S.E.R.E. did you know for a fact you were not going to die?

No.



I didn't. Did you?



In your opinion. I disagree.



You seem to misunderstand the tactic.

Oh and I went to S.E.R.E school as well, but we called it SCIR. (If you were/are an airdale, you will get it..)

I didn't feel anything but fear when they were rooting us out of our hiding places in the woods. The thought that it was all training did not even cross my mind. They were looking for me and I didn't want to get captured.

I have much respect for s.e.r.e graduates. Hell, three kids that worked for me went through it and they were all fine. I talked to them about it and one thought it was the most fun he ever had, one said the training was fantastic but because of the length of the class, he was not sure it would help him further down the road and the third just said it was tough. That's all he said.

I guess everyone takes that course and comes out with different results. Its a personal thing I suppose.

I suppose it has various results much more so that seal training. (and yes, I know they have nothing to do with with each other. Seal training is much longer but has a ridiculous drop out/failure rate). Oh and since you dont know what scir is, I have to assume you are not an airdale. I love to reminisce. Oh well, at least biker sailor was from my side of the navy. ) Anyway, nice to meet a fellow squid.

I was in the Marine Corps, please don't call me a squid and drive the boat please.

Nice to meet a fellow veteran. At least you aren't Army.

 

[asterism]

Noriega was tortured with loud rock music.

I'm sure if this board would have been around back then, the left would be screaming their bloody heads off about it too.

Of course. That was one of the things those wacktivists protested when they were out in front of the School of the Americas at Benning.