Waterboarding? 183 Times? Wrong...

[PubliusInfinitum]

Mohammed similarly told the Red Cross that "I was also subjected to 'water-boarding' on five occasions, all of which occurred during the first month." Those were his five "sessions"; the precise number of applications is not known but is a fraction of the 183 figure.

It wasn't 183. He admitted it himself.

The CIA memo said 183 times. But they were probably lying like everything else to justify using water torture?

The count simply tracks "pours"... MEANING THE NUMBER OF TIMES WATER WAS APPLIED... if you're standing there, pouring and pause for just a second... to allow the water to soak through the head-rag... then pour some more, once it soaks in... that's two pours.. hesitate and pour again and that's three... It takes 8-10 'pours' before there's sufficient water running through the rag to even BEGIN effecting the future informant...

Why do you feel so compelled to advance such implied certainty about that which you are so clearly, thoroughly ignorant? Do you 'feel' that doing so serves your interests?

The only means such could be the case is IF your interests were to humiliate yourself and discredit that for which you're advocating; and that's just foolish...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The 8th amendment protects against CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT... Coersive interrogation is not punshment, thus the 8th amendment is not relative to such.

I predict that this is the dumbest line I will read today.

Do ya now?

Yet I can't help but to notice that ya didt 'feel' so confident on that assessment that you were compelled to state a basis in reasoning for this conclusion...

Which tells me you wanted to appeal to what you felt was a popularly held concensus; but in truth, ya simply lack sufficient understanding of the issue to discuss it with any degree of confidence... which you've learned usually results in you being thoroughly humiliated...

 

[midcan5]

Shows how far the chickenhawks have come.

Reagan's DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff for Waterboarding Prisoners

Jason Leopold

"George W. Bush's Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn't even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan's Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions."

t r u t h o u t | Reagan's DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff for Waterboarding Prisoners

 

[DiveCon]

Shows how far the chickenhawks have come.

Reagan's DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff for Waterboarding Prisoners

Jason Leopold

"George W. Bush's Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn't even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan's Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions."

t r u t h o u t | Reagan's DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff for Waterboarding Prisoners

are you really THIS fucking stupid?

Jason Leopold is an idiot

remember "Rove Indicted"


but it figures he cant tell the difference between the case of a sheriff using it to get people to confess and seeking info(not prosecution) to save American lives

 

[Article 15]

The 8th amendment protects against CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT... Coersive interrogation is not punshment, thus the 8th amendment is not relative to such.

I predict that this is the dumbest line I will read today.

Do ya now?

Yet I can't help but to notice that ya didt 'feel' so confident on that assessment that you were compelled to state a basis in reasoning for this conclusion...

Which tells me you wanted to appeal to what you felt was a popularly held concensus; but in truth, ya simply lack sufficient understanding of the issue to discuss it with any degree of confidence... which you've learned usually results in you being thoroughly humiliated...

Don't let your imagination run too wild on you, it's because that one line was all that idiotic statement was worth.

 

[Burp]

Mohammed similarly told the Red Cross that "I was also subjected to 'water-boarding' on five occasions, all of which occurred during the first month." Those were his five "sessions"; the precise number of applications is not known but is a fraction of the 183 figure.

It wasn't 183. He admitted it himself.

The CIA memo said 183 times. But they were probably lying like everything else to justify using water torture?

There is a constant theme throughout your posts

The only source that is telling the truth is the one that agrees with you.

You said Fox could be lying. I showed you where they weren't.

The CIA is talking about pours. The two terrorists in question each said they weren't waterboarded 183 times.

The Red Cross and the terrorists are liars though.

 

[Iriemon]

...Coersive interrogation is not punshment, thus the 8th amendment is not relative to such...

...you're an imbecile...

Argument summarized. Speaks for itself.

And yet another loser who neg reps when he loses an argument.

 

[Iriemon]

Mohammed similarly told the Red Cross that "I was also subjected to 'water-boarding' on five occasions, all of which occurred during the first month." Those were his five "sessions"; the precise number of applications is not known but is a fraction of the 183 figure.

It wasn't 183. He admitted it himself.

The CIA memo said 183 times. But they were probably lying like everything else to justify using water torture?

There is a constant theme throughout your posts

The only source that is telling the truth is the one that agrees with you.

You said Fox could be lying. I showed you where they weren't.

The CIA is talking about pours. The two terrorists in question each said they weren't waterboarded 183 times.

The Red Cross and the terrorists are liars though.

Say they same thing for yourself. The only source that is telling the truth is the one that agrees with you, right? Why do you assume KSM was telling the truth?

The memo said 183. I didn't say which was right or wrong, only that there was conflicting information.

 

[Iriemon]

...Coersive interrogation is not punshment, thus the 8th amendment is not relative to such...

...you're an imbecile...

Argument summarized. Speaks for itself.

Well there ya have it kids... this member is now relegated to obtuse pretense... It is a CLASSIC DEFAULT CONCESSION!

It's all that remains of the shell which are her closest held feelings on this issue.

She demands that the simple application of stress on a Mass Murderer is the equivilent of TORTURE; she equates the prosecution of a war to the prosecution of a criminal trial; thus where a Mass Murdering Terrorists is captured IN WAR and removed from the civilian population for the PURPOSES of culling from them the secrets which they hold, regarding their plots to MURDER MASSIVE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, which serve PURELY as a means to PRE-EMPT; TO STOP THEIR FREE ASSOCIATES FROM CARRYING OUT THAT MASS MURDER... She demands that such is a violation of US Constitutional protections, which serve to protect individuals who are NOT AT WAR WITH CIVILIZATION... but who have violated a legal criminal statute...

It is as I've repeatedly said... this is the ideological left come to make the MASS MURDERING ISLAMIC TERRORISTS THE VICTIMS...

It is as I said it would be on the afternoon 9-11... that it would be no time at all before the Ideological left was promoting the interests of; and demanding strict defense of the HUMAN RIGHTS OF the Mass Murdering Terrorists; those who ATTACKED US, killing 3000 INNOCENT PEOPLE, FOR NO GOOD REASON...

And how do they do it? By redefining words and RAISING THE STANDARDS for those who are at war with civilization itself; while they themselves seek to lower every other conceivable standard... the very source of the hatred which the Islamic Enemy uses to sell itself, to their addle-minded recruits.

The advocates of debauchery and hedonism, the same ones that demand that personal responsibility be stripped from the very concept of human rights... have finally turned out to stubbornly demand that EVEN WHEN ONE CAN'T FIND THE PERSONAL STRENGTH TO NOT MURDER THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE HARMED ATHEM IN NO WAY, REPRESENT NO THREAT TO THEM... these people run to delcare that EVEN WHEN YOU PLOT TO MURDER MASSIVE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE; even when you're NOT being prosecuted for that crime, but simply being questioned by those tasked with stopping your association from doing so... ANY attempt to encourage you to be forthcoming with the time sensitive, critical, life saving information... is A VIOLATION OF YOUR RIGHTS... Thus prohibited by the US Constitution, and morality itself.

Of course, the good news here is that this member has simply established herself as a zealot; her ability to defend her point of view is nill; her argument fails repeatedly and where it is shown to fail, point for point; time after time, she simply returns to reject those points out of hand refusing to be swayed by immutable reason; and what's more she openly and quite deceitfully declares that her points were not even challenged; despite the argument being written directly above for all to see.

Concession? It was your own words.

You refer to me as a she because you normally make assumption about things you know nothing about. It shows.

By the way, since you are an expert on the 8th amendment in saying torture does not equal "punishment", does reading through your posts count as "punishment" or "torture"?

 

[Coyote]

Does it seem that way?

So you're saying that the Allies didn't know from which direction the planes which would bomb London would come? They didn't know what Military was sending them, or from what bases of operation; from what nation; who the leaders of the operation were? They didn't know that those planes bombing London would be coming at night...

And while the Axis powers had secrets which the Allies surely wanted... we knew who the Axis were, we knew who their leaders were and how and of what their Armies were comprised.... We knew much of what WE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TERRORISTS...

And while you feel sure that the individual terrorist functionary may not know much about operations beyond their specific task... they likely know the names and faces of their associates and can identify those irregular faces of their next higher tier of authority; and those captured from that tier, know the names and faces relative to that; and those of the next tier are familair with it's respective information... and while it didn't make a rats ass difference what the name of the person commanding the platoon, the company, the batallian and so on... because we knew what the source was...

What's more, those mass murderers, who have been subjected to the highest stress by US intelligence are highly placed executives within the Associations... who, once induced with sufficient stress told us all about the names, places, plans, and other such critical information which provided that we could simply go to where those people were; where we either kill them or capture them; and where captured, we detain them so THEY can be debriefed to tell us MORE which we do not know about their SECRET ORGANIZATIONS; which prevents and has DEMONSTRABLY PREVENTED their MURDEROUS PLOTS FROM BEING EXECUTED and culled greater levels of understanding of who, what, when and where of their associations... which provided the means to further disrupt their means to meet their murderous goals.

We knew where Hitler was.. We knew where his general staff was... we simply didn't have the means to simply fly to Berlin and snatch their asses up and take them down.

Not quite that simple.

We didn't know who their operatives were nor their plans. In fact, just like the terrorists....their murderous plots were....SECRET. Wow. Imagine that. Circumstances so different yet....in the end....not.

So you're saying the British didn't know that it was the Nazis which were bombing London? Again, get serious or STFU...

AQ and the other terrorists elements don't publish such information... They're secret organizations; and except and until we detain and interrogate members of those organizations, study the documents and other tangible evidence found on them or in their dwellings, WE DON'T KNOW... and that we NEED TO KNOW, makes FINDING IT, AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF PROSECUTING THE WAR AGAINST THEM.

Sorry sweetheart, but in all this wealth of information, I'm not seeing anything about how the Nazi's or the Japanese published all their secret plans and data for bombing raids, upcoming attacks or infiltration. Now, be a sport and use your "indoor voice" please.

It's not terribly complex, but it does require SOME REASONED THOUGHT.

Well, that's kind of what I thought bubby....I've been sitting here waiting for your thought processes to kick in....

processing....

processing...

application terminated due to insufficient data.

Pubis, can you try thinking some more?

No, I am decidely NOT saying that... nor did I say anything which could have lead a reasonably intelligent person to such a conclusion. You simply need to reduce your oppositions argument to the absurd, due to your inability to mount an effective contest against the argument which is being presented.

One can't argue against a delusion. Tell me again how the Germans and Japanese had no secrets we needed that could have been extracted by torture.

It is a demonstrable fact that the British knew who was bombing them; from where the planes would come and who sent them...

But not when and not where.

It is a demonstrable fact that the nature of the Terrorists; who organize themselves to maximize cover and concealment within the civilian population are largely NOT known to those with whom they have waged war... and that this is their ONLY MEANS TOWARDS POTENTIAL SUCCESS; and it is further a demonstrable fact that the LEGAL Combat of international war is distinct in every conceivable level and on every potential facet from that of TERRORISM...

In conventional war where one knows WHO they are fighting, the goal simply changes to the destruction of that "WHO"... the prblem becomes the "HOW." The secrets the Nazis had, which the Allies needed served HOW... not who...

True, but like "who" (which we really have some idea about now) -- how and when can likewise be extracted via torture if torture works.

Yet....they were able to get the information without it. Strange that.

Further, it can't be stressed enough that where one was found practicing espionage in that war, the rules were quite different for those unenviable prisoners, on BOTH sides of the equation... where one was found in civilian attire, acting as a player for the other side of the equation... they were subject to, at the end and in the best case scenario... summary exectution. And for good reason... as where one finds their enemy living amongst the general population, the equation for dealing with that enemy has exponentially increased in terms of complexity and cost; where the solution of the very presence of such stands a solution which, for all intents and purposes requires on begin to destroy itself, to save itself.

You make good points Pubis, but your points don't negate the issues revolving around the use of torture.

Torture dehumanizes and destroys both parties - this was noted in the Algiers situation. Once they started using torture, they began to rely on it - even though it was also noted that the information gained by torture was far less reliable then the information gained by conventional means.

And this is why such tactics are "ILLEGAL" and why so many treaties and conventions have sought to PREVENT SUCH... and why the advocacy of the rights of those who engage in it, renders the concept: 'counter-productive' to world class in it's value as an understatement.

At the end of the day, you're simply trying to ignore those facts and equate the two wholly distinct concepts; obscure the essential distinctions either out of ignorance or for the purposes of deceit... and frankly neither one is preferable to the other as the end result is the same; the advocacy which naturally occurs as a result of both serves no other purpose than to promote the interests of the enemy which is presently attacking the very fabric of civilization...

No, at the end of the day I see people like attempting to justify a tactic that itself will destroy the very fabric of civilization which we desire to save.

But that's the nature of the ideological left... as such is the means by which the stupid manifest a political voice; and what could be MORE stupid, than the same ideology which has been labeled: The Great Satan... the title that has come from the chronic advancment of debauchery and hedonsim; which the enemy most effiectively uses to promote their fight against that civilization; to be that enemies most ardent promoter?

It's nothing less than breathless idiocy on parade...

Sweetie, is that you on the big white horse leading it?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

...Coersive interrogation is not punshment, thus the 8th amendment is not relative to such...

...you're an imbecile...

Argument summarized. Speaks for itself.

And yet another loser who neg reps when he loses an argument.

ROFLMNAO... this idiot negs me and cries when it's returned...

Which considering my policy of inequitable response; which rolls at an adjustable rate of 6:1... that doesn't bode well for the well being of those tender feelings; with that said, as a general rule I don't neg unless neg'd... not hard and fast... I will neg overt trolls, but that's fairly rare.

But anywho... the suggestion that you've carried so much as one exchange, is absurd on it's face; your argument have been destroyed; that you can't or won't accept that is irrelevant.

You've equated 'stress' with torture; demanded that US stress inducing coercive interrogation is equitable with that implemented by the Imperial Japanese and that the US inducing of stress to Mass murdering detainees amounts to cruel and unusual punshment...

When in point of demonstrable fact, stress inducement is NOT torture, or anything approaching it; the Imperial Japanese Military killed tens of thousands of people through the use of ACTUAL TORTURE... which is a rather common side effect from such; and no one to the best of my knowledge has died as a result of US stress inducing techniques... and if on the odd chance that they have... it's the rare EXCEPTION; and for the 5th time, Stress induced coercive interrogation is NOT PUNISHMENT...

Now you can rationalize that it is in response TO their failure to be initially forthcoming; but such ad hoc reasoning is invalid; thus could never withstand the contest wherein the simple fact that US interrogation of Mass Murdering Terrorists is NOT a "Request For Information"... It is a process by which the interrogator is tasked with getting the information; and they will get information; and this is without regard to the Mass Murdering Terrorists feelings on the issue of cooperation; it's a process which is going to be applied, and it the individual is forthcoming... great... that moves things along nicely; but if not, no big deal, the process is perfectly prepared for just such circumstances.

If they were there to get a heart by-pass, they'd get one... We aren't interested in how the mass murderers feel about it; we aren't interested in how the feminized left feels about it and until the CinC declares the policy to be off the table, it's goign to happen.

And odds are it's going to happen anyway... just with sufficient plausible deniability for The Lord of the Idiots to feel better about it.... Setting aside stress inducement is like a carpenter setting aside his laser square, tape measure, nail gun and his pouch... Oh sure... he could still be a carpenter, just a real slow one which is prone to building crooked crap...

They're there to provide information and they're perfectly entitled to do resist providing that information; but they're going to provide it...

 

[Coyote]

Mohammed similarly told the Red Cross that "I was also subjected to 'water-boarding' on five occasions, all of which occurred during the first month." Those were his five "sessions"; the precise number of applications is not known but is a fraction of the 183 figure.

It wasn't 183. He admitted it himself.

The CIA memo said 183 times. But they were probably lying like everything else to justify using water torture?

There is a constant theme throughout your posts

The only source that is telling the truth is the one that agrees with you.

You said Fox could be lying. I showed you where they weren't.

The CIA is talking about pours. The two terrorists in question each said they weren't waterboarded 183 times.

The Red Cross and the terrorists are liars though.

Of course...the Red Cross has good reason to lie...(trying to figure out that) but...the CIA doesn't

Each pour = a simulated drowning. That would make 183 waterboardings.

 

[Coyote]

...Coersive interrogation is not punshment, thus the 8th amendment is not relative to such...

...you're an imbecile...

Argument summarized. Speaks for itself.

And yet another loser who neg reps when he loses an argument.

Don't feel bad...DiveCon gave me one...it's red...like a heart....I think he loves me

Maybe I'll get some more

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Argument summarized. Speaks for itself.

Well there ya have it kids... this member is now relegated to obtuse pretense... It is a CLASSIC DEFAULT CONCESSION!

It's all that remains of the shell which are her closest held feelings on this issue.

She demands that the simple application of stress on a Mass Murderer is the equivilent of TORTURE; she equates the prosecution of a war to the prosecution of a criminal trial; thus where a Mass Murdering Terrorists is captured IN WAR and removed from the civilian population for the PURPOSES of culling from them the secrets which they hold, regarding their plots to MURDER MASSIVE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, which serve PURELY as a means to PRE-EMPT; TO STOP THEIR FREE ASSOCIATES FROM CARRYING OUT THAT MASS MURDER... She demands that such is a violation of US Constitutional protections, which serve to protect individuals who are NOT AT WAR WITH CIVILIZATION... but who have violated a legal criminal statute...

It is as I've repeatedly said... this is the ideological left come to make the MASS MURDERING ISLAMIC TERRORISTS THE VICTIMS...

It is as I said it would be on the afternoon 9-11... that it would be no time at all before the Ideological left was promoting the interests of; and demanding strict defense of the HUMAN RIGHTS OF the Mass Murdering Terrorists; those who ATTACKED US, killing 3000 INNOCENT PEOPLE, FOR NO GOOD REASON...

And how do they do it? By redefining words and RAISING THE STANDARDS for those who are at war with civilization itself; while they themselves seek to lower every other conceivable standard... the very source of the hatred which the Islamic Enemy uses to sell itself, to their addle-minded recruits.

The advocates of debauchery and hedonism, the same ones that demand that personal responsibility be stripped from the very concept of human rights... have finally turned out to stubbornly demand that EVEN WHEN ONE CAN'T FIND THE PERSONAL STRENGTH TO NOT MURDER THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE HARMED ATHEM IN NO WAY, REPRESENT NO THREAT TO THEM... these people run to delcare that EVEN WHEN YOU PLOT TO MURDER MASSIVE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE; even when you're NOT being prosecuted for that crime, but simply being questioned by those tasked with stopping your association from doing so... ANY attempt to encourage you to be forthcoming with the time sensitive, critical, life saving information... is A VIOLATION OF YOUR RIGHTS... Thus prohibited by the US Constitution, and morality itself.

Of course, the good news here is that this member has simply established herself as a zealot; her ability to defend her point of view is nill; her argument fails repeatedly and where it is shown to fail, point for point; time after time, she simply returns to reject those points out of hand refusing to be swayed by immutable reason; and what's more she openly and quite deceitfully declares that her points were not even challenged; despite the argument being written directly above for all to see.

Concession?

Yes...

It was your own words.

Yes, they were, stripped of their neighbors, which taken as a group provides the basis in reasoning... you're running to strip my words of that basis, thus reducing my position to that which you felt more comfortable responding, absent the reasoned basis; is a concession that you were unable to address that stated reasoning...

You refer to me as a she because you normally make assumption about things you know nothing about. It shows.

I know precisely what feminine tone reads like and I always respond to those who evoke the feminine tone as 'she'... If you don't appreciate it, I suggest ya butch up a few notches. Your positions SCREAMS 'Babs Streisand...'

By the way, since you are an expert on the 8th amendment in saying torture does not equal "punishment", does reading through your posts count as "punishment" or "torture"?

Answer your own question... Does it? I'd say that you would consider it as such; which just demonstrates your definition of the word to be ridiculous...

Reading the thread is a function of the process... just as stressed induced cercion is a function of interrogating those who prefer to be uncooperative when they're reasonably known to be associated with mass murderers and they're subject to the interrogation process for such. It's no more a punishment than is their detainment.

You consider it punishment, while some see it as a gift... given that those that captured them were within their rights to kill them on the spot where they were initially taken into detainment.

http://vodpod.com/watch/416281-insurgents-get-smoked-by-ac-130-gunship-in-iraq

 

[Burp]

The CIA memo said 183 times. But they were probably lying like everything else to justify using water torture?

There is a constant theme throughout your posts

The only source that is telling the truth is the one that agrees with you.

You said Fox could be lying. I showed you where they weren't.

The CIA is talking about pours. The two terrorists in question each said they weren't waterboarded 183 times.

The Red Cross and the terrorists are liars though.

Say they same thing for yourself. The only source that is telling the truth is the one that agrees with you, right? Why do you assume KSM was telling the truth?

The memo said 183. I didn't say which was right or wrong, only that there was conflicting information.

The CIA stated 183. KSM clarified it. The RC reported it.

Based on the statement he prepared for the court, he wasn't afraid of anything.

The CIA didn't lie. I never said they did.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Does it seem that way?

So you're saying that the Allies didn't know from which direction the planes which would bomb London would come? They didn't know what Military was sending them, or from what bases of operation; from what nation; who the leaders of the operation were? They didn't know that those planes bombing London would be coming at night...

And while the Axis powers had secrets which the Allies surely wanted... we knew who the Axis were, we knew who their leaders were and how and of what their Armies were comprised.... We knew much of what WE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TERRORISTS...

And while you feel sure that the individual terrorist functionary may not know much about operations beyond their specific task... they likely know the names and faces of their associates and can identify those irregular faces of their next higher tier of authority; and those captured from that tier, know the names and faces relative to that; and those of the next tier are familair with it's respective information... and while it didn't make a rats ass difference what the name of the person commanding the platoon, the company, the batallian and so on... because we knew what the source was...

What's more, those mass murderers, who have been subjected to the highest stress by US intelligence are highly placed executives within the Associations... who, once induced with sufficient stress told us all about the names, places, plans, and other such critical information which provided that we could simply go to where those people were; where we either kill them or capture them; and where captured, we detain them so THEY can be debriefed to tell us MORE which we do not know about their SECRET ORGANIZATIONS; which prevents and has DEMONSTRABLY PREVENTED their MURDEROUS PLOTS FROM BEING EXECUTED and culled greater levels of understanding of who, what, when and where of their associations... which provided the means to further disrupt their means to meet their murderous goals.

We knew where Hitler was.. We knew where his general staff was... we simply didn't have the means to simply fly to Berlin and snatch their asses up and take them down.

Not quite that simple.

Oh it's precisely that simple... now if you want to shift the scope of the discussion from the Bombing of London, fine... but don't pretend that we were discussing the full scope of the entire war... when it is a demonstrable fact that the issue was the Battle over London; Winston Churchill and The Lord of the Idiots invoking Churchill... as if the two have ANYTHING in common. Churchill would have considered King Hussein on pretty much the same context as he did Mr. Chamberlain; who he loathed as a weak minded appeaser of evil.

We didn't know who their operatives were nor their plans. In fact, just like the terrorists....their murderous plots were....SECRET. Wow. Imagine that. Circumstances so different yet....in the end....not.

Their operatives? ROFLMNAO... Hermann Göring was the 'operative' which was bombing Europe and EVERYONE KNEW IT... Now perhaps you meant to reference the Nazi spies? Sis, if you think that Winston Churchill didn't induce spies to be forthcoming when he found one, then you are working on a delusion of the substantial variety... Spies were not Soldiers, they were anathema to civilization and they were decidely NOT protected by the Geneva Convention... Spies, are the equivilent of terrorists and they were treated to rather bleak ends by both sides.

So you're saying the British didn't know that it was the Nazis which were bombing London? Again, get serious or STFU...

AQ and the other terrorists elements don't publish such information... They're secret organizations; and except and until we detain and interrogate members of those organizations, study the documents and other tangible evidence found on them or in their dwellings, WE DON'T KNOW... and that we NEED TO KNOW, makes FINDING IT, AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF PROSECUTING THE WAR AGAINST THEM.

Sorry sweetheart, but in all this wealth of information, I'm not seeing anything about how the Nazi's or the Japanese published all their secret plans and data for bombing raids, upcoming attacks or infiltration. Now, be a sport and use your "indoor voice" please.

Well, Gee... I guess I that's because I wasn't discussing their secret plans... we were discussing their identity, their composition, their intentions to WIN THE WAR BY ANY AND ALL MEANS...

But it's cool how you demonstrate your need to pretend otherwise. It's a wonderful means of disembling and a first class concession of the default variety.

Well, that's kind of what I thought bubby....I've been sitting here waiting for your thought processes to kick in....

processing....

processing...

application terminated due to insufficient data.

Pubis, can you try thinking some more?

So you're sitting there waiting on me to respond to a post that ya haven't advanced on a message board... 'sounds about right. I wouldn't have advised that ya admit that sort of thing, but hey... you're entitled to write up your losing arguments anyway ya like...

One can't argue against a delusion. Tell me again how the Germans and Japanese had no secrets we needed that could have been extracted by torture.

Never said they didn't... nor did I say anything which could have lead a reasonably intelligent person to conclude I had... such is a disemblence used for the purpose of conceding without having to admit you were wrong.

It is a demonstrable fact that the nature of the Terrorists; who organize themselves to maximize cover and concealment within the civilian population are largely NOT known to those with whom they have waged war... and that this is their ONLY MEANS TOWARDS POTENTIAL SUCCESS; and it is further a demonstrable fact that the LEGAL Combat of international war is distinct in every conceivable level and on every potential facet from that of TERRORISM...

In conventional war where one knows WHO they are fighting, the goal simply changes to the destruction of that "WHO"... the prblem becomes the "HOW." The secrets the Nazis had, which the Allies needed served HOW... not who...

True, but like "who" (which we really have some idea about now) -- how and when can likewise be extracted via torture if torture works.

Yet....they were able to get the information without it. Strange that.

ROFL... Yeah they got it off the Delcaration of War and the German insignias on the planes bombing London... thus 'who' was hardly a poser worthy of wasting time verifying through interrogation.

You make good points Pubis, but your points don't negate the issues revolving around the use of torture.

Well the US isn't torturing anyone... so that serves reason; however I've spent thousands of words and countless hours descrining the issues revolving around stress induced coercive interrogation...

Torture dehumanizes and destroys both parties

Torture is applied by parties which are already functionally destroyed. As I've stated many times, the US and her interrogation units are not torturing anyone.

- this was noted in the Algiers situation. Once they started using torture, they began to rely on it - even though it was also noted that the information gained by torture was far less reliable then the information gained by conventional means.

Yes, and the French are some of the most cold blooded fucks ont he planet... spend a few hours studying up on the origins of their Democracy... Google "The French Revolution: The Terrors..." where tens of thousand were tortured and beheaded...

And this is why such tactics (Terrorism) are "ILLEGAL" and why so many treaties and conventions have sought to PREVENT SUCH... and why the advocacy of the rights of those who engage in it, renders the concept: 'counter-productive' to world class in it's value as an understatement.

At the end of the day, you're simply trying to ignore those facts and equate the two wholly distinct concepts; obscure the essential distinctions either out of ignorance or for the purposes of deceit... and frankly neither one is preferable to the other as the end result is the same; the advocacy which naturally occurs as a result of both serves no other purpose than to promote the interests of the enemy which is presently attacking the very fabric of civilization...

No, at the end of the day I see people like attempting to justify a tactic that itself will destroy the very fabric of civilization which we desire to save.

Yes 'stress' can be so destructive... why as 'everyone knows' stress is more destructive than ramming jumbl jets full of innocent people into skyscrapers full of innocent people...

Which would be a great point if NYC wasn't one of the most streasful places on earth and was doing just fine, before those towers came down...

Spare me the cumbyah bullshit... the US isn't torturing anyone and that you feel otherwise doesn't change that FACT.

But that's the nature of the ideological left... as such is the means by which the stupid manifest a political voice; and what could be MORE stupid, than the same ideology which has been labeled: The Great Satan... the title that has come from the chronic advancment of debauchery and hedonsim; which the enemy most effiectively uses to promote their fight against that civilization; to be that enemies most ardent promoter?

It's nothing less than breathless idiocy on parade...

Damn, that's brilliant...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The CIA memo said 183 times. But they were probably lying like everything else to justify using water torture?

There is a constant theme throughout your posts

The only source that is telling the truth is the one that agrees with you.

You said Fox could be lying. I showed you where they weren't.

The CIA is talking about pours. The two terrorists in question each said they weren't waterboarded 183 times.

The Red Cross and the terrorists are liars though.

Of course...the Red Cross has good reason to lie...(trying to figure out that) but...the CIA doesn't

Each pour = a simulated drowning. That would make 183 waterboardings.

Each 'pour' is not a simulated drowning... a pour is a period where water os flowing from a vessel... or a hose... whatever is being used... one doesn't just pour water on the idiots... one pours, waits for the water to soak in, allows for the experience to set in... and one pours again... pour... wait a second or two... pour again= two pours...

You just disqualified yourself as someone which has the slightest notion of what they're talking about.

 

[Iriemon]

Well there ya have it kids... this member is now relegated to obtuse pretense... It is a CLASSIC DEFAULT CONCESSION!

It's all that remains of the shell which are her closest held feelings on this issue.

She demands that the simple application of stress on a Mass Murderer is the equivilent of TORTURE; she equates the prosecution of a war to the prosecution of a criminal trial; thus where a Mass Murdering Terrorists is captured IN WAR and removed from the civilian population for the PURPOSES of culling from them the secrets which they hold, regarding their plots to MURDER MASSIVE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, which serve PURELY as a means to PRE-EMPT; TO STOP THEIR FREE ASSOCIATES FROM CARRYING OUT THAT MASS MURDER... She demands that such is a violation of US Constitutional protections, which serve to protect individuals who are NOT AT WAR WITH CIVILIZATION... but who have violated a legal criminal statute...

It is as I've repeatedly said... this is the ideological left come to make the MASS MURDERING ISLAMIC TERRORISTS THE VICTIMS...

It is as I said it would be on the afternoon 9-11... that it would be no time at all before the Ideological left was promoting the interests of; and demanding strict defense of the HUMAN RIGHTS OF the Mass Murdering Terrorists; those who ATTACKED US, killing 3000 INNOCENT PEOPLE, FOR NO GOOD REASON...

And how do they do it? By redefining words and RAISING THE STANDARDS for those who are at war with civilization itself; while they themselves seek to lower every other conceivable standard... the very source of the hatred which the Islamic Enemy uses to sell itself, to their addle-minded recruits.

The advocates of debauchery and hedonism, the same ones that demand that personal responsibility be stripped from the very concept of human rights... have finally turned out to stubbornly demand that EVEN WHEN ONE CAN'T FIND THE PERSONAL STRENGTH TO NOT MURDER THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE HARMED ATHEM IN NO WAY, REPRESENT NO THREAT TO THEM... these people run to delcare that EVEN WHEN YOU PLOT TO MURDER MASSIVE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE; even when you're NOT being prosecuted for that crime, but simply being questioned by those tasked with stopping your association from doing so... ANY attempt to encourage you to be forthcoming with the time sensitive, critical, life saving information... is A VIOLATION OF YOUR RIGHTS... Thus prohibited by the US Constitution, and morality itself.

Of course, the good news here is that this member has simply established herself as a zealot; her ability to defend her point of view is nill; her argument fails repeatedly and where it is shown to fail, point for point; time after time, she simply returns to reject those points out of hand refusing to be swayed by immutable reason; and what's more she openly and quite deceitfully declares that her points were not even challenged; despite the argument being written directly above for all to see.

Concession?

Yes...

Yes, they were, stripped of their neighbors, which taken as a group provides the basis in reasoning... you're running to strip my words of that basis, thus reducing my position to that which you felt more comfortable responding, absent the reasoned basis; is a concession that you were unable to address that stated reasoning...

The record is clear as to what you said.

You refer to me as a she because you normally make assumption about things you know nothing about. It shows.

I know precisely what feminine tone reads like and I always respond to those who evoke the feminine tone as 'she'... If you don't appreciate it, I suggest ya butch up a few notches. Your positions SCREAMS 'Babs Streisand...'

And just proves you'll say things when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Just like torture is not punishment and the US did not prosecute war crimes for waterboarding.

By the way, since you are an expert on the 8th amendment in saying torture does not equal "punishment", does reading through your posts count as "punishment" or "torture"?

Answer your own question... Does it? I'd say that you would consider it as such; which just demonstrates your definition of the word to be ridiculous...

I consider it both punishment and torure.

 

[Iriemon]

There is a constant theme throughout your posts

The only source that is telling the truth is the one that agrees with you.

You said Fox could be lying. I showed you where they weren't.

The CIA is talking about pours. The two terrorists in question each said they weren't waterboarded 183 times.

The Red Cross and the terrorists are liars though.

Say they same thing for yourself. The only source that is telling the truth is the one that agrees with you, right? Why do you assume KSM was telling the truth?

The memo said 183. I didn't say which was right or wrong, only that there was conflicting information.

The CIA stated 183. KSM clarified it. The RC reported it.

Based on the statement he prepared for the court, he wasn't afraid of anything.

The CIA didn't lie. I never said they did.

Why do you assume KSM was telling the truth?

 

[Iriemon]

Argument summarized. Speaks for itself.

And yet another loser who neg reps when he loses an argument.

Don't feel bad...DiveCon gave me one...it's red...like a heart....I think he loves me

Maybe I'll get some more

He's a coward. Notice he doesn't do that to folks with more reps than him; just with new folks that don't have the points to rep him back.