http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Jan 14, 6:34*pm, Ignoramus18994 ignoramus18...@NOSPAM.
18994.invalid wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/01/13/AR200...

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
* *Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
* * * to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
* * * *from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
* * * * *more readers you will need to find a different means of
* * * * * * * * * * * *posting on Usenet.
* * * * * * * * * *http://improve-usenet.org/

All the Republican rats are pointing fingers at each other...

It will do them no good.

TMT

Ignoramus18994 wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.


Big damn deal.
I guess that since all you liberals claim we are torturing folks we
should actually start. Pull a few fingernails out, maybe some nice
bamboo slivers under the nails, How about we use the same tortures they
use in the Mid-east, cut a few fingers off using a dull knife, gouge out
a few eyes, whip them with real whips soaked in gas, maybe stone a few
to death or public castrations.
How about some nice electric charges to sensitive areas, burning pokers
in other spots.

--
Steve W.

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

I don't condone torture. Will the hoopla over torture type events change
the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? It would seem that in the
future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no
loose ends. Is that the way to go? Is the intelligence gained from taking
any prisoners worth the political fallout? How will this affect the mindset
of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US
forces?

Ignoramus18994 wrote:

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Did we put an eye out? Beat him black and blue? Put him on the rack?, cut a off a finger,
arm, leg or head off? Castrate him? Brand, whip, crush? Drag him behind a humvee until
dead?

How about putting him in ropes like McCain and the other POW's from Vietnam?

Did we starve him? Expose him to disease? Did we bring his family to Gitmo and torture
them in front of him.

Got a bit cold did he? How cold? How long, any tissue damage? I froze my arse off today
working on my car outside.

Did we torture him or just give him a crappy day, a day that those he helped kill will
never have again be it good or bad?

Maybe we should have used Stalin's advice, no man, no problem and just put him in a trench
with a round in his head to tell no tales? That is the way of those that actually torture
people.

Wes

On 2009-01-15, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus18994 wrote:

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Did we put an eye out? Beat him black and blue? Put him on the rack?, cut a off a finger,
arm, leg or head off? Castrate him? Brand, whip, crush? Drag him behind a humvee until
dead?

How about putting him in ropes like McCain and the other POW's from Vietnam?

Did we starve him? Expose him to disease? Did we bring his family to Gitmo and torture
them in front of him.

Got a bit cold did he? How cold? How long, any tissue damage? I froze my arse off today
working on my car outside.

Did we torture him or just give him a crappy day, a day that those he helped kill will
never have again be it good or bad?

Maybe we should have used Stalin's advice, no man, no problem and just put him in a trench
with a round in his head to tell no tales? That is the way of those that actually torture
people.

As far as I understand the article, Qahtani's health was actually
wrecked by his treatment.

He seems to be a bad guy, if I am to believe the Bush administration,
but good or bad, he was tortured anyway. Maybe Bush should have said
"we torture bad people only".

As for Stalin, sleep deprivation was his favorite form of torture. It
is very effective, although time consuming. Gouging eyes out is more of
a form of sadism, rather than an interrogation tactic.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
Ignoramus18994 wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.


Big damn deal.
I guess that since all you liberals claim we are torturing folks we
should actually start. Pull a few fingernails out, maybe some nice
bamboo slivers under the nails, How about we use the same tortures they
use in the Mid-east, cut a few fingers off using a dull knife, gouge out
a few eyes, whip them with real whips soaked in gas, maybe stone a few
to death or public castrations.
How about some nice electric charges to sensitive areas, burning pokers
in other spots.

Sure. It's like becoming a whore. Once you've sold yourself the first time,
it keeps getting easier to go for the whole deal and to accept the kinky
stuff without blinking an eye.

With attitudes like yours, we'd probably have a torture reality show by next
season, and the ratings would be through the roof.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jan 14, 7:00*pm, "Steve W." wrote:
Ignoramus18994 wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/01/13/AR200...

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.

Big damn deal.
*I guess that since all you liberals claim we are torturing folks we
should actually start. Pull a few fingernails out, maybe some nice
bamboo slivers under the nails, How about we use the same tortures they
use in the Mid-east, cut a few fingers off using a dull knife, gouge out
a few eyes, whip them with real whips soaked in gas, maybe stone a few
to death or public castrations.
How about some nice electric charges to sensitive areas, burning pokers
in other spots.

--
Steve W.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I take it you are talking about Abu Ghraib.

Yeah...us Americans know how to throw a party.

TMT

On Jan 14, 7:11*pm, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus18994 wrote:
"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Did we put an eye out? Beat him black and blue? *Put him on the rack?, cut a off a finger,
arm, leg or head off? *Castrate him? *Brand, whip, crush? *Drag him behind a humvee until
dead?

How about putting him in ropes like McCain and the other POW's from Vietnam?

Did we starve him? *Expose him to disease? *Did we bring his family to Gitmo and torture
them in front of him.

Got a bit cold did he? *How cold? *How long, any tissue damage? *I froze my arse off today
working on my car outside.

Did we torture him or just give him a crappy day, a day that those he helped kill will
never have again be it good or bad?

Maybe we should have used Stalin's advice, no man, no problem and just put him in a trench
with a round in his head to tell no tales? *That is the way of those that actually torture
people.

Wes

Another Abu Ghraib fan.

Did you get your Abu Ghraib photos autographed?

TMT

On Jan 14, 8:36*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message

...





Ignoramus18994 wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/01/13/AR200....

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.

Big damn deal.
I guess that since all you liberals claim we are torturing folks we
should actually start. Pull a few fingernails out, maybe some nice
bamboo slivers under the nails, How about we use the same tortures they
use in the Mid-east, cut a few fingers off using a dull knife, gouge out
a few eyes, whip them with real whips soaked in gas, maybe stone a few
to death or public castrations.
How about some nice electric charges to sensitive areas, burning pokers
in other spots.

Sure. It's like becoming a whore. Once you've sold yourself the first time,
it keeps getting easier to go for the whole deal and to accept the kinky
stuff without blinking an eye.

With attitudes like yours, we'd probably have a torture reality show by next
season, and the ratings would be through the roof.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why does "whore" and Bush come to mind in the same thought?

I hear George will have some free time soon...maybe he can host the
new reality show "American Torturer".

Sounds like it will be a rating hit with the Republicans.

TMT

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
Ignoramus18994 wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.

Big damn deal.
I guess that since all you liberals claim we are torturing folks we
should actually start. Pull a few fingernails out, maybe some nice
bamboo slivers under the nails, How about we use the same tortures they
use in the Mid-east, cut a few fingers off using a dull knife, gouge out
a few eyes, whip them with real whips soaked in gas, maybe stone a few
to death or public castrations.
How about some nice electric charges to sensitive areas, burning pokers
in other spots.

Sure. It's like becoming a whore. Once you've sold yourself the first time,
it keeps getting easier to go for the whole deal and to accept the kinky
stuff without blinking an eye.

With attitudes like yours, we'd probably have a torture reality show by next
season, and the ratings would be through the roof.

--
Ed Huntress



Thanks for the idea. If all these Idol and Cops shows made bucks you may
be on to something....

--
Steve W.

On Jan 14, 10:50*pm, "Steve W." wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
Ignoramus18994 wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/01/13/AR200....

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.

Big damn deal.
I guess that since all you liberals claim we are torturing folks we
should actually start. Pull a few fingernails out, maybe some nice
bamboo slivers under the nails, How about we use the same tortures they
use in the Mid-east, cut a few fingers off using a dull knife, gouge out
a few eyes, whip them with real whips soaked in gas, maybe stone a few
to death or public castrations.
How about some nice electric charges to sensitive areas, burning pokers
in other spots.

Sure. It's like becoming a whore. Once you've sold yourself the first time,
it keeps getting easier to go for the whole deal and to accept the kinky
stuff without blinking an eye.

With attitudes like yours, we'd probably have a torture reality show by next
season, and the ratings would be through the roof.

--
Ed Huntress

Thanks for the idea. If all these Idol and Cops shows made bucks you may
be on to something....

--
Steve W.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Care to be the first victum..err ...guest?

TMT

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:


"Ignoramus18994" wrote in message
m...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

I don't condone torture. Will the hoopla over torture type events change
the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? It would seem that in the
future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no
loose ends. Is that the way to go? Is the intelligence gained from taking
any prisoners worth the political fallout? How will this affect the mindset
of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US
forces?

I recently read an article that stated that we had obtained
information from torture that prevented more then one terrorist attack
in the U.S.

Not to argue whether this article was truth or fiction, but if it is
true was the torture then justified? Or, should we count the ensuing
terrorist attack on US soil as collateral damage?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
Ignoramus18994 wrote:


Big damn deal.
I guess that since all you liberals claim we are torturing folks we
should actually start. Pull a few fingernails out, maybe some nice
bamboo slivers under the nails, How about we use the same tortures they
use in the Mid-east, cut a few fingers off using a dull knife, gouge out
a few eyes, whip them with real whips soaked in gas, maybe stone a few
to death or public castrations.
How about some nice electric charges to sensitive areas, burning pokers
in other spots.

--
Steve W.

If torture does not bother your morals, then perhaps the rather well known
fact that it produces unreliable information might bother you. Military
intelligence officers who are experts in interrogation do not use physical
torture - there are plenty of interviews with retired interrogators and they
all make clear that torture may get you a confession but it will not get you
the truth.

so, you can decide it is abhorrent because it is morally wrong, or you could
decide it is abhorrent because it doesn't work.

or maybe you just like to hurt people, in which case it is you who are
abhorrent

On Jan 14, 11:54*pm, "Bill Noble" wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message

...

Ignoramus18994 wrote:

Big damn deal.
I guess that since all you liberals claim we are torturing folks we
should actually start. Pull a few fingernails out, maybe some nice
bamboo slivers under the nails, How about we use the same tortures they
use in the Mid-east, cut a few fingers off using a dull knife, gouge out
a few eyes, whip them with real whips soaked in gas, maybe stone a few
to death or public castrations.
How about some nice electric charges to sensitive areas, burning pokers
in other spots.

--
Steve W.

If torture does not bother your morals, then perhaps the rather well known
fact that it produces unreliable information might bother you. *Military
intelligence officers who are experts in interrogation do not use physical
torture - there are plenty of interviews with retired interrogators and they
all make clear that torture may get you a confession but it will not get you
the truth.

so, you can decide it is abhorrent because it is morally wrong, or you could
decide it is abhorrent because it doesn't work.

or maybe you just like to hurt people, in which case it is you who are
abhorrent

And maybe Bill is right...very right.

TMT

Bill Noble wrote:

If torture does not bother your morals, then perhaps the rather well known
fact that it produces unreliable information might bother you. Military
intelligence officers who are experts in interrogation do not use physical
torture - there are plenty of interviews with retired interrogators and they
all make clear that torture may get you a confession but it will not get you
the truth.

so, you can decide it is abhorrent because it is morally wrong, or you could
decide it is abhorrent because it doesn't work.

or maybe you just like to hurt people, in which case it is you who are
abhorrent




I'll repeat that for you Bill.

Very well said...


Richard

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/
I don't condone torture. Will the hoopla over torture type events change
the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? It would seem that in the
future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no
loose ends. Is that the way to go? Is the intelligence gained from taking
any prisoners worth the political fallout? How will this affect the mindset
of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US
forces?

I recently read an article that stated that we had obtained
information from torture that prevented more then one terrorist attack
in the U.S.

Not to argue whether this article was truth or fiction, but if it is
true was the torture then justified? Or, should we count the ensuing
terrorist attack on US soil as collateral damage?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Aw Bruce,

A certain skepticism is called for these days.

We've been told so very many things about all this that turned out
to be misleading (at best).

Recognize the P word when it pops up?

Propaganda...

Myself, I look for the adverbs.

Wes wrote:
Ignoramus18994 wrote:

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Did we put an eye out? Beat him black and blue? Put him on the rack?, cut a off a finger,
arm, leg or head off? Castrate him? Brand, whip, crush? Drag him behind a humvee until
dead?

How about putting him in ropes like McCain and the other POW's from Vietnam?

Did we starve him? Expose him to disease? Did we bring his family to Gitmo and torture
them in front of him.

Got a bit cold did he? How cold? How long, any tissue damage? I froze my arse off today
working on my car outside.

Did we torture him or just give him a crappy day, a day that those he helped kill will
never have again be it good or bad?

Maybe we should have used Stalin's advice, no man, no problem and just put him in a trench
with a round in his head to tell no tales? That is the way of those that actually torture
people.

Wes



What if it was you, Wes?

Or your brother?

Or your father?

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:07:35 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/
I don't condone torture. Will the hoopla over torture type events change
the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? It would seem that in the
future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no
loose ends. Is that the way to go? Is the intelligence gained from taking
any prisoners worth the political fallout? How will this affect the mindset
of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US
forces?

I recently read an article that stated that we had obtained
information from torture that prevented more then one terrorist attack
in the U.S.

Not to argue whether this article was truth or fiction, but if it is
true was the torture then justified? Or, should we count the ensuing
terrorist attack on US soil as collateral damage?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Aw Bruce,

A certain skepticism is called for these days.

We've been told so very many things about all this that turned out
to be misleading (at best).

Recognize the P word when it pops up?

Propaganda...

Myself, I look for the adverbs.

No. that isn't the question. The real question is will those who
condemn torture out of hand accept the stigmata of having caused the
death of their neighbors if torture would have prevented an atrocity?

It is one thing to take the moral high ground when there is no danger
to you and yours but if your idealistic actions will cause the death
of someone, perhaps your own family, are you really sincere?

Again, I emphasis that I have no knowledge whether torture is
effective or not, nor argue one way or the other. I simply ask, if it
did work and if it did prevent an atrocity, if it did, perhaps,
prevent your wife from being slaughtered, then would you still condemn
it?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

cavelamb wrote:

What if it was you, Wes?

Or your brother?

Or your

Or Wen Ho Lee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee

Strange how there wasn't an uproar about the mistreatment of the above American citizen.
Oh, wrong administration.

Wes

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:07:35 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/
I don't condone torture. Will the hoopla over torture type events change
the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? It would seem that in the
future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no
loose ends. Is that the way to go? Is the intelligence gained from taking
any prisoners worth the political fallout? How will this affect the mindset
of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US
forces?

I recently read an article that stated that we had obtained
information from torture that prevented more then one terrorist attack
in the U.S.

Not to argue whether this article was truth or fiction, but if it is
true was the torture then justified? Or, should we count the ensuing
terrorist attack on US soil as collateral damage?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Aw Bruce,

A certain skepticism is called for these days.

We've been told so very many things about all this that turned out
to be misleading (at best).

Recognize the P word when it pops up?

Propaganda...

Myself, I look for the adverbs.

No. that isn't the question. The real question is will those who
condemn torture out of hand accept the stigmata of having caused the
death of their neighbors if torture would have prevented an atrocity?


If you want to put it in those terms, the yes, absolutely.

Like it or not, the idea of stopping someone from committing a crime
- before he actually does it - it illegal by our laws.

It's called prior restraint.


It is one thing to take the moral high ground when there is no danger
to you and yours but if your idealistic actions will cause the death
of someone, perhaps your own family, are you really sincere?

Bruce, I've been there.

Viet Nam - 1968 - 1969
1st of the 9th - 1st Cav
"The Head Hunters"

I'm taking "the high moral ground" because it's the right path.


Again, I emphasis that I have no knowledge whether torture is
effective or not, nor argue one way or the other. I simply ask, if it
did work and if it did prevent an atrocity, if it did, perhaps,
prevent your wife from being slaughtered, then would you still condemn
it?

Yes I would.

Problem is, torture IS unreliable.
People will tell you anything they think you want to hear to stop it.

And other people will tell you anything to get away with it.

Step through the looking glass - it's all smoke and mirrors.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

rOn Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:48:21 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:07:35 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/
I don't condone torture. Will the hoopla over torture type events change
the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? It would seem that in the
future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no
loose ends. Is that the way to go? Is the intelligence gained from taking
any prisoners worth the political fallout? How will this affect the mindset
of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US
forces?

I recently read an article that stated that we had obtained
information from torture that prevented more then one terrorist attack
in the U.S.

Not to argue whether this article was truth or fiction, but if it is
true was the torture then justified? Or, should we count the ensuing
terrorist attack on US soil as collateral damage?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Aw Bruce,

A certain skepticism is called for these days.

We've been told so very many things about all this that turned out
to be misleading (at best).

Recognize the P word when it pops up?

Propaganda...

Myself, I look for the adverbs.

No. that isn't the question. The real question is will those who
condemn torture out of hand accept the stigmata of having caused the
death of their neighbors if torture would have prevented an atrocity?


If you want to put it in those terms, the yes, absolutely.

Like it or not, the idea of stopping someone from committing a crime
- before he actually does it - it illegal by our laws.

It's called prior restraint.


It is one thing to take the moral high ground when there is no danger
to you and yours but if your idealistic actions will cause the death
of someone, perhaps your own family, are you really sincere?

Bruce, I've been there.

Viet Nam - 1968 - 1969
1st of the 9th - 1st Cav
"The Head Hunters"

Your wife and family was in Vietnam?


I'm taking "the high moral ground" because it's the right path.


Again, I emphasis that I have no knowledge whether torture is
effective or not, nor argue one way or the other. I simply ask, if it
did work and if it did prevent an atrocity, if it did, perhaps,
prevent your wife from being slaughtered, then would you still condemn
it?

Yes I would.

Problem is, torture IS unreliable.
People will tell you anything they think you want to hear to stop it.

And other people will tell you anything to get away with it.

Step through the looking glass - it's all smoke and mirrors.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Again, that is not the question.

I am aware that physical torture is often unproductive, since as you
say, when they are beating on you will say anything to stop it.

On the other hand it has and did work in some/many instances. We had a
Psy-war airplane shot down in N. Korea and the crew captured. When
they were repatriated they stated that they had "talked" due to daily
beatings over a period of months.

My question, though, is whether those who condemn torture are prepared
to justify their stance should the failure to gain information known
the detainee result in an atrocity such as the WTC?

Perhaps a statement such as "Yes I know that the failure to obtain
information known to the detainees may result in an atomic weapon
being detonated in Times Square resulting in 257,000 fatalities and
possible another 1/4 million dying in the following 12 months due to
radioactive poisoning, and I am prepared to accept that I am solely
responsibility, both legally and morally, should an event of this
nature occur"?

Far fetched, possibly, but 9/11 was unthinkable on 8/11....
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
rOn Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:48:21 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:07:35 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in
message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule


My question, though, is whether those who condemn torture are prepared
to justify their stance should the failure to gain information known
the detainee result in an atrocity such as the WTC?

Perhaps a statement such as "Yes I know that the failure to obtain
information known to the detainees may result in an atomic weapon
being detonated in Times Square resulting in 257,000 fatalities and
possible another 1/4 million dying in the following 12 months due to
radioactive poisoning, and I am prepared to accept that I am solely
responsibility, both legally and morally, should an event of this
nature occur"?

You are assuming the absence of other prevention methods.
Good intelligence and investigative law enforcement are what prevent crimes
of this nature.
Every single instance, for example, of prevention in the CONUS since 9-11
has been the result of coordinated intelligence collection and good old
fashioned police work.

Homeland Security is something of a cock up. You can't give unfettered power
to an enforcement agency.
America should have followed the British model.
The effort undertaken by the States, individually but now connectedly, and
known as "Fusion Centers" is what has made the difference.
They have absolutely zero enforcement power but they collect and archive an
incredible amount of data in a searchable format.
They are an archive, for instance, of every call or report made to or by a
public agency in the areas they serve. This information is then entered,
shared and analyzed.The tools at hand to conduct such analysis are truly
amazing and get better every day. One of the advantages of this approach is
that there is little chance for "mischief", if you take my meaning.

In other words, the dots get connected. That's what works, even in the face
of initial resistance at the federal level.


Far fetched, possibly, but 9/11 was unthinkable on 8/11....

Hardly.
Not only had it been thought of, it had been a genuine concern and was
outlined in a PDB on 8-12.

Cheers,

And to you.
One final thought. A famous American once said "Give me liberty or give me
death".
What he meant wasn't that he'd trade a modicum of freedom to save his own
skin.
That's what cowards do - betray their principals out of hand.
He meant he'd rather go down fighting, to the death if it came to that,
than do so.
America is either a country of men or of laws.

JC

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:43:57 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
No. that isn't the question. The real question is will those who
condemn torture out of hand accept the stigmata of having caused the
death of their neighbors if torture would have prevented an atrocity?

This is called a "ticking bomb" concept. The question is, if there is a
ticking bomb set to explode, and you know it is out there but now
where exactly, and you caught a terrorist who would not talk, would
you torture him?

That situation has never practically been replicated.

So this argument is used by Rush Limbaugh, "neocons" and other
assorted liars to justify torturing people in other
circumstances. This particular terrorist mentioned in WP article is a
good example. He was not aware of a ticking bomb. At the worst, he
wanted to be on one of the flights hijacked on 9/11. By the time he
was captured, he was not aware of any ticking bombs, and yet was
tortured anyway.

It is one thing to take the moral high ground when there is no danger
to you and yours but if your idealistic actions will cause the death
of someone, perhaps your own family, are you really sincere?

I take full moral responsibility for my opinions.

i

Again, I emphasis that I have no knowledge whether torture is
effective or not, nor argue one way or the other. I simply ask, if it
did work and if it did prevent an atrocity, if it did, perhaps,
prevent your wife from being slaughtered, then would you still condemn
it?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
rOn Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:48:21 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:07:35 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/
I don't condone torture. Will the hoopla over torture type events change
the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? It would seem that in the
future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no
loose ends. Is that the way to go? Is the intelligence gained from taking
any prisoners worth the political fallout? How will this affect the mindset
of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US
forces?

I recently read an article that stated that we had obtained
information from torture that prevented more then one terrorist attack
in the U.S.

Not to argue whether this article was truth or fiction, but if it is
true was the torture then justified? Or, should we count the ensuing
terrorist attack on US soil as collateral damage?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
Aw Bruce,

A certain skepticism is called for these days.

We've been told so very many things about all this that turned out
to be misleading (at best).

Recognize the P word when it pops up?

Propaganda...

Myself, I look for the adverbs.
No. that isn't the question. The real question is will those who
condemn torture out of hand accept the stigmata of having caused the
death of their neighbors if torture would have prevented an atrocity?

If you want to put it in those terms, the yes, absolutely.

Like it or not, the idea of stopping someone from committing a crime
- before he actually does it - it illegal by our laws.

It's called prior restraint.


It is one thing to take the moral high ground when there is no danger
to you and yours but if your idealistic actions will cause the death
of someone, perhaps your own family, are you really sincere?
Bruce, I've been there.

Viet Nam - 1968 - 1969
1st of the 9th - 1st Cav
"The Head Hunters"

Your wife and family was in Vietnam?

I'm taking "the high moral ground" because it's the right path.


Again, I emphasis that I have no knowledge whether torture is
effective or not, nor argue one way or the other. I simply ask, if it
did work and if it did prevent an atrocity, if it did, perhaps,
prevent your wife from being slaughtered, then would you still condemn
it?
Yes I would.

Problem is, torture IS unreliable.
People will tell you anything they think you want to hear to stop it.

And other people will tell you anything to get away with it.

Step through the looking glass - it's all smoke and mirrors.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Again, that is not the question.

I am aware that physical torture is often unproductive, since as you
say, when they are beating on you will say anything to stop it.

On the other hand it has and did work in some/many instances. We had a
Psy-war airplane shot down in N. Korea and the crew captured. When
they were repatriated they stated that they had "talked" due to daily
beatings over a period of months.

My question, though, is whether those who condemn torture are prepared
to justify their stance should the failure to gain information known
the detainee result in an atrocity such as the WTC?

Perhaps a statement such as "Yes I know that the failure to obtain
information known to the detainees may result in an atomic weapon
being detonated in Times Square resulting in 257,000 fatalities and
possible another 1/4 million dying in the following 12 months due to
radioactive poisoning, and I am prepared to accept that I am solely
responsibility, both legally and morally, should an event of this
nature occur"?


Torture should remain illegal.

The "hidden bomb" scenario is much more "24" than real life.

Isn't it interesting that on TV the guy they torture is always a guy who
knows what we want to learn? In real life, we torture people to get
info they don't have, and so they give us whatever they think we want to
get it to stop, and we believe the crap, because we tortured the guy to
get it.

Even if torture was outlawed, there would be no way to prevent it's use,
but the people doing it, and the people ordering it, would know, and
should have known, that they are outside the law, and the situation and
the information should rise to a level where the risk of trial and
imprisonment would be justified by the danger averted. If a soldier
will jump on a grenade to save his comrades, a Sec.Def ought to be
willing to face prison or execution to save Times Square.

I doubt if any info we gather from people we have held for more than a
month could rise to this degree of importance.

We never tortured to get info from the Nazis or the Japanese, and we
have executed for war crimes people who used the very techniques we now
advocate.

Real intel is gathered by finding out what the target wants, and trading
for info. Sometimes that is a tuna sandwich, or a handful of Viagra.

And Yes, if thousands die because we didn't torture I am able to accept
that, because torture has far too many misuses. Before your 'atomic
bomb on times square' became a situation, the bomb had to be made, it
had to get into the wrong hands, it had to get into the US, and it had
to be placed in Times Square. At all of those points, there are things
that should be done to stop it. If that plot bears fruit, it wasn't
because we didn't torture, it is because we didn't stop proliferation,
didn't secure our borders and didn't maintain vigilance in monitoring
our enemies.

If torture ever had prevented a real attack, we would know details. The
sheer propaganda value against other terrorists would be overwhelming.
The planned attacks we know about were upset by good solid police and
intelligence work, using informants and wiretaps and citizens keeping an
eye out for odd behaviour.


Far fetched, possibly, but 9/11 was unthinkable on 8/11....

Bull****! "Bin Ladin determined to attack in the U.S." ring any bells?
FBI reports of middle eastern men seeking to learn to fly, but not land
jet airliners? Hear of those?


Stuart

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:17:52 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
rOn Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:48:21 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:07:35 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in
message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule


My question, though, is whether those who condemn torture are prepared
to justify their stance should the failure to gain information known
the detainee result in an atrocity such as the WTC?

Perhaps a statement such as "Yes I know that the failure to obtain
information known to the detainees may result in an atomic weapon
being detonated in Times Square resulting in 257,000 fatalities and
possible another 1/4 million dying in the following 12 months due to
radioactive poisoning, and I am prepared to accept that I am solely
responsibility, both legally and morally, should an event of this
nature occur"?

You are assuming the absence of other prevention methods.
Good intelligence and investigative law enforcement are what prevent crimes
of this nature.
Every single instance, for example, of prevention in the CONUS since 9-11
has been the result of coordinated intelligence collection and good old
fashioned police work.

I don't believe that anyone will ever know as Homeland has publicized
the fact that they have prevented several cases of terrorism - but
they are too secret to tell the people about.

Certainly good old fashioned police work didn't work too well in the
lead up to 9/11. According to the newspapers the FBI was alerted to
"somebody" taking flight lessons that looked funny, and nobody paid
any attention to it.

Homeland Security is something of a cock up. You can't give unfettered power
to an enforcement agency.
America should have followed the British model.
The effort undertaken by the States, individually but now connectedly, and
known as "Fusion Centers" is what has made the difference.
They have absolutely zero enforcement power but they collect and archive an
incredible amount of data in a searchable format.
They are an archive, for instance, of every call or report made to or by a
public agency in the areas they serve. This information is then entered,
shared and analyzed.The tools at hand to conduct such analysis are truly
amazing and get better every day. One of the advantages of this approach is
that there is little chance for "mischief", if you take my meaning.

The CIA was tasked with this responsibility for foreign activity and,
I assume, the FBI for domestic. Apparently it didn't work.

In other words, the dots get connected. That's what works, even in the face
of initial resistance at the federal level.


Far fetched, possibly, but 9/11 was unthinkable on 8/11....

Hardly.
Not only had it been thought of, it had been a genuine concern and was
outlined in a PDB on 8-12.

Cheers,

And to you.
One final thought. A famous American once said "Give me liberty or give me
death".
What he meant wasn't that he'd trade a modicum of freedom to save his own
skin.
That's what cowards do - betray their principals out of hand.
He meant he'd rather go down fighting, to the death if it came to that,
than do so.
America is either a country of men or of laws.

JC

And a little research shows that old Patrick was giving a rabble
rousing speech in an attempt to convince the state of Virginia to
support the revolution with troops. He was appointed as a colonel in
the Virginia Militia but seemed to have been in only one action, The
Gunpowder Affair, which ended in a face off with no fighting.
Although his speech expressed a noble sentiment he did not serve as a
fighting officer during the revolution.

Don't get started on the Homeland people. If I remember the
justification for the Central intelligence Agency was to coordinate
intelligence activities among the various government agencies. Now,
apparently someone thinks it didn't work so they form a new agency.
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...

snip

I am aware that physical torture is often unproductive, since as you
say, when they are beating on you will say anything to stop it.

On the other hand it has and did work in some/many instances. We had a
Psy-war airplane shot down in N. Korea and the crew captured. When
they were repatriated they stated that they had "talked" due to daily
beatings over a period of months.

My question, though, is whether those who condemn torture are prepared
to justify their stance should the failure to gain information known
the detainee result in an atrocity such as the WTC?

Extreme cases make bad policy.

--
Ed Huntress

Ignoramus18994 wrote:

As far as I understand the article, Qahtani's health was actually
wrecked by his treatment.

He seems to be a bad guy, if I am to believe the Bush administration,
but good or bad, he was tortured anyway. Maybe Bush should have said
"we torture bad people only".

I'd like to know exactly what they did to him. You and I don't know and we can't be sure
his health issues are a result of whatever harsh treatment was applied.

You do understand the concept of 'spin'? Even when it comes from a side you might tend to
agree with on certain issues?

Wes

On Jan 15, 12:07*am, cavelamb wrote:
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in message
om...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/01/13/AR200....

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
* Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
* * *to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
* * * from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
* * * * more readers you will need to find a different means of
* * * * * * * * * * * posting on Usenet.
* * * * * * * * *http://improve-usenet.org/
I don't condone torture. *Will the hoopla over torture type events change
the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? *It would seem that in the
future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no
loose ends. *Is that the way to go? *Is the intelligence gained from taking
any prisoners worth the political fallout? *How will this affect the mindset
of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US
forces?

I recently read an article that stated that we had obtained
information from torture that prevented more then one terrorist attack
in the U.S.

Not to argue whether this article was truth or fiction, *but if it is
true was the torture then justified? Or, should we count the ensuing
terrorist attack on US soil as collateral damage?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Aw Bruce,

A certain skepticism is called for these days.

We've been told so very many things about all this that turned out
to be misleading (at best).

Recognize the P word when it pops up?

Propaganda...

Myself, I look for the adverbs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's a P-word for you....PROSECUTE.

Time to show the world that the United States is the Country we think
it is.

TMT

On Jan 15, 1:43*am, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:07:35 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:





Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in message
news:apqdndM8kec9GfPUnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews. com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/01/13/AR200....

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
* Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
* * *to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
* * * from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
* * * * more readers you will need to find a different means of
* * * * * * * * * * * posting on Usenet.
* * * * * * * * *http://improve-usenet.org/
I don't condone torture. *Will the hoopla over torture type events change
the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? *It would seem that in the
future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no
loose ends. *Is that the way to go? *Is the intelligence gained from taking
any prisoners worth the political fallout? *How will this affect the mindset
of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US
forces?

I recently read an article that stated that we had obtained
information from torture that prevented more then one terrorist attack
in the U.S.

Not to argue whether this article was truth or fiction, *but if it is
true was the torture then justified? Or, should we count the ensuing
terrorist attack on US soil as collateral damage?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Aw Bruce,

A certain skepticism is called for these days.

We've been told so very many things about all this that turned out
to be misleading (at best).

Recognize the P word when it pops up?

Propaganda...

Myself, I look for the adverbs.

No. that isn't the question. The real question is will those who
condemn torture out of hand accept the stigmata of having caused the
death of their neighbors if torture would have prevented an atrocity?

It is one thing to take the moral high ground when there is no danger
to you and yours but if your idealistic actions will cause the death
of someone, perhaps your own family, are you really sincere?

Again, I emphasis that I have no knowledge whether torture is
effective or not, nor argue one way or the other. I simply ask, if it
did work and if it did prevent an atrocity, if it did, perhaps,
prevent your wife from being slaughtered, then would you still condemn
it?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes I would.

Lowering yourself to the level of the adversary is never acceptable if
you consider yourself a moral being.

The irony of a socalled Christian President authorizing torture is not
lost on me.

Or the Religious Right sheeple to condone it.

TMT

On Jan 15, 1:53*am, Wes wrote:
cavelamb wrote:
What if it was you, Wes?

Or your brother?

Or your

Or Wen Ho Lee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee

Strange how there wasn't an uproar about the mistreatment of the above American citizen.
Oh, wrong administration.

Wes

Stay on topic Wes...we are talking the current Administration.

Why do wingers have such a hard time remembering what time it is?

On Jan 15, 6:37*am, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:
rOn Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:48:21 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:





Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:07:35 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in message
news:apqdndM8kec9GfPUnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganew s.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/01/13/AR200...

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
* Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
* * *to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
* * * from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
* * * * more readers you will need to find a different means of
* * * * * * * * * * * posting on Usenet.
* * * * * * * * *http://improve-usenet.org/
I don't condone torture. *Will the hoopla over torture type events change
the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? *It would seem that in the
future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no
loose ends. *Is that the way to go? *Is the intelligence gained from taking
any prisoners worth the political fallout? *How will this affect the mindset
of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US
forces?

I recently read an article that stated that we had obtained
information from torture that prevented more then one terrorist attack
in the U.S.

Not to argue whether this article was truth or fiction, *but if it is
true was the torture then justified? Or, should we count the ensuing
terrorist attack on US soil as collateral damage?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Aw Bruce,

A certain skepticism is called for these days.

We've been told so very many things about all this that turned out
to be misleading (at best).

Recognize the P word when it pops up?

Propaganda...

Myself, I look for the adverbs.

No. that isn't the question. The real question is will those who
condemn torture out of hand accept the stigmata of having caused the
death of their neighbors if torture would have prevented an atrocity?

If you want to put it in those terms, the yes, absolutely.

Like it or not, the idea of stopping someone from committing a crime
- before he actually does it - it illegal by our laws.

It's called prior restraint.

It is one thing to take the moral high ground when there is no danger
to you and yours but if your idealistic actions will cause the death
of someone, perhaps your own family, are you really sincere?

Bruce, I've been there.

Viet Nam - 1968 - 1969
1st of the 9th - 1st Cav
* "The Head Hunters"

Your wife and family was in Vietnam?







I'm taking "the high moral ground" because it's the right path.

Again, I emphasis that I have no knowledge whether torture is
effective or not, nor argue one way or the other. I simply ask, if it
did work and if it did prevent an atrocity, if it did, perhaps,
prevent your wife from being slaughtered, then would you still condemn
it?

Yes I would.

Problem is, torture IS unreliable.
People will tell you anything they think you want to hear to stop it.

And other people will tell you anything to get away with it.

Step through the looking glass - it's all smoke and mirrors.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Again, that is not the question.

I am aware that physical torture is often unproductive, since as you
say, when they are beating on you will say anything to stop it.

On the other hand it has and did work in some/many instances. We had a
Psy-war airplane shot down in N. Korea and the crew captured. When
they were repatriated they stated that they had "talked" due to daily
beatings over a period of months.

My question, though, is whether those who condemn torture are prepared
to justify their stance should the failure to gain information known
the detainee result in an atrocity such as the WTC?

Perhaps a statement such as "Yes I know that the failure to obtain
information known to the detainees may result in an atomic weapon
being detonated in Times Square resulting in 257,000 fatalities and
possible another 1/4 million dying in the following 12 months due to
radioactive poisoning, and I am prepared to accept that I am solely
responsibility, both legally and morally, should an event of this
nature occur"?

Far fetched, possibly, but 9/11 was unthinkable on 8/11....
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is well documented that the warnings for 9/11 were present ...and
ignored by the Bush Administration.

Would you like to add up the death toll while Bush has been in office?

No WMDs and how many are dead because of it?

TMT

On Jan 15, 7:17*am, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in messagenews:mn9um4hd3snkm0eh9v55afuh8ismedvfnq@4ax .com...





rOn Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:48:21 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:07:35 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in
message
news:apqdndM8kec9GfPUnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@gigane ws.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/01/13/AR200...

My question, though, is whether those who condemn torture are prepared
to justify their stance should the failure to gain information known
the detainee result in an atrocity such as the WTC?

Perhaps a statement such as "Yes I know that the failure to obtain
information known to the detainees may result in an atomic weapon
being detonated in Times Square resulting in 257,000 fatalities and
possible another 1/4 million dying in the following 12 months due to
radioactive poisoning, and I am prepared to accept that I am solely
responsibility, both legally and morally, should an event of this
nature occur"?

You are assuming the absence of other prevention methods.
Good intelligence and investigative law enforcement are what prevent crimes
of this nature.
Every single instance, for example, of prevention in the CONUS since 9-11
has been the result of coordinated intelligence collection and good old
fashioned police work.

Homeland Security is something of a cock up. You can't give unfettered power
to an enforcement agency.
America should have followed the British model.
The effort undertaken by the States, individually but now connectedly, and
known as "Fusion Centers" is what has made the difference.
They have absolutely zero enforcement power but they collect and archive an
incredible amount of data in a searchable format.
They are an archive, for instance, of every call or report made to or by a
public agency in the areas they serve. This information is then entered,
shared and analyzed.The tools at hand to conduct such analysis are truly
amazing and get better every day. One of the advantages of this approach is
that there is little chance for "mischief", if you take my meaning.

In other words, the dots get connected. That's what works, even in the face
of initial resistance at the federal level.



Far fetched, possibly, but 9/11 was unthinkable on 8/11....

Hardly.
Not only had it been thought of, it had been a genuine concern and was
outlined in a PDB on 8-12.

Cheers,

And to you.
One final thought. A famous American once said "Give me liberty or give me
death".
What he meant wasn't that he'd trade a modicum of freedom to save his own
skin.
That's what cowards do - betray their principals out of hand.
He meant he'd rather go down fighting, to the death if it came to that,
than do so.
America is either a country of men or of laws.

JC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And Bush is an AWOL...that should have given us a hint of what was to
come.

TMT

On Jan 15, 3:57*pm, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus18994 wrote:
As far as I understand the article, Qahtani's health was actually
wrecked by his treatment.

He seems to be a bad guy, if I am to believe the Bush administration,
but good or bad, he was tortured anyway. Maybe Bush should have said
"we torture bad people only".

I'd like to know exactly what they did to him. *You and I don't know and we can't be sure
his health issues are a result of whatever harsh treatment was applied.

You do understand the concept of 'spin'? *Even when it comes from a side you might tend to
agree with on certain issues?

Wes

We had been watching spin happen for all the Bush years..one of the
most secretive Administrations ever.

When the free press turns the lights on, those who spin go hide under
their rocks.

Example...

Bush gets $350 billion of your tax money and gives it to the
banks..and they won't tell us where it went.

Obama will get the other $350 billion of your tax money and where it
goes will be public knowledge.

See the difference?

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:57 pm, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus18994 wrote:
As far as I understand the article, Qahtani's health was actually
wrecked by his treatment.
He seems to be a bad guy, if I am to believe the Bush administration,
but good or bad, he was tortured anyway. Maybe Bush should have said
"we torture bad people only".
I'd like to know exactly what they did to him. You and I don't know and we can't be sure
his health issues are a result of whatever harsh treatment was applied.

You do understand the concept of 'spin'? Even when it comes from a side you might tend to
agree with on certain issues?

Wes

We had been watching spin happen for all the Bush years..one of the
most secretive Administrations ever.

When the free press turns the lights on, those who spin go hide under
their rocks.

The only people to whom the "free press" looks stable are those who are
also spinning. Or perhaps the light you are referring to is a strobe.

Example...

Bush gets $350 billion of your tax money and gives it to the
banks..and they won't tell us where it went.

Obama will get the other $350 billion of your tax money and where it
goes will be public knowledge.

See the difference?

No, we don't see anything yet. And The One doesn't have enough of a
track record to have any idea what he will do when he has some actual
responsibility. It might be funny to watch if we did not have so much
at stake.
Things that we would expect a president elect to make public
knowledge are being kept under wraps, such as his actual birth certificate.
But no matter. If he ****s up, the press will fix it so we aren't
bothered unnecessarily

Man, you need to put a new record on because
this one has a skip in it...

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:57:42 -0500, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus18994 wrote:

As far as I understand the article, Qahtani's health was actually
wrecked by his treatment.

He seems to be a bad guy, if I am to believe the Bush administration,
but good or bad, he was tortured anyway. Maybe Bush should have said
"we torture bad people only".

I'd like to know exactly what they did to him. You and I don't know
and we can't be sure his health issues are a result of whatever
harsh treatment was applied.

Apparently, the Republican judge appointed by the Bush administration,
thinks that these health issues are a result of him being tortured.

You do understand the concept of 'spin'? Even when it comes from a
side you might tend to agree with on certain issues?

I think that the article is very clear in referring to words of Susan
Crawford.

I used to vote Republican, before they showed their true nature under
the Bush administration.

i

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Bush gets $350 billion of your tax money and gives it to the
banks..and they won't tell us where it went.

That legislation had to come out of the House since it was spending. Nancy Pelosi runs
that shop. Then to be enacted into law, the Senate had to vote for it. Harry Reid runs
that shop. Bush gets to sign or reject it.

If you don't like the disclosure rules, blame the correct people.

Obama will get the other $350 billion of your tax money and where it
goes will be public knowledge.

Now why would things be different? The same legislators are passing that legislation.

Explain your logic path on your statements. I can not follow it.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Jan 15, 5:05*pm, RB wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:57 pm, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus18994 wrote:
As far as I understand the article, Qahtani's health was actually
wrecked by his treatment.
He seems to be a bad guy, if I am to believe the Bush administration,
but good or bad, he was tortured anyway. Maybe Bush should have said
"we torture bad people only".
I'd like to know exactly what they did to him. *You and I don't know and we can't be sure
his health issues are a result of whatever harsh treatment was applied..

You do understand the concept of 'spin'? *Even when it comes from a side you might tend to
agree with on certain issues?

Wes

We had been watching spin happen for all the Bush years..one of the
most secretive Administrations ever.

When the free press turns the lights on, those who spin go hide under
their rocks.

The only people to whom the "free press" looks stable are those who are
also spinning. *Or perhaps the light you are referring to is a strobe.

Example...

Bush gets $350 billion of your tax money and gives it to the
banks..and they won't tell us where it went.

Obama will get the other $350 billion of your tax money and where it
goes will be public knowledge.

See the difference?

No, we don't see anything yet. And The One doesn't have enough of a
track record to have any idea what he will do when he has some actual
responsibility. *It might be funny to watch if we did not have so much
at stake.
* * *Things that we would expect a president elect to make public
knowledge are being kept under wraps, such as his actual birth certificate.
* * *But no matter. If he ****s up, the press will fix it so we aren't
bothered unnecessarily- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another winger who is a sore loser?

LOL

Show me George Bush's birth certificate.

The one that Daddy didn't buy.

TMT

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:


It is one thing to take the moral high ground when there is no danger
to you and yours but if your idealistic actions will cause the death
of someone, perhaps your own family, are you really sincere?
Bruce, I've been there.

Viet Nam - 1968 - 1969
1st of the 9th - 1st Cav
"The Head Hunters"

Your wife and family was in Vietnam?



Hi Bruce,
We have corresponded before in this and other groups, so I know you are not a
fool.

But drivel like that is more apropos of Gunner teasing Bird Brain than what I
have come to expect from you.

So, politely asked, knock it off, ok?



Today's news.

Skip down to the bottom line below?

I was not one of the ones involved in it back then.
I won't condone it today.

If it was illegal then, in a place as evil as that place was,
then why is it being allowed today - in the "free world"
by our own so called leaders?



For the full story...
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/DOJ/sto...6648730&page=1


Waterboarding, a harsh interrogation technique which simulates drowning, has
drawn criticism from lawmakers. Officials within the Bush administration have
acknowledged that the CIA has used the method on terror detainees after the 9/11
attacks, but insisted that it is not torture.

Responding to a question about waterboarding from committee chairman Sen.
Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Holder said, "I agree with you, Mr. Chairman,
waterboarding is torture."

Holder, who has been a vocal critic of the administration's policies in the war
on terror, explained his stance further, saying, "If you look at the history of
the use of that technique used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the inquisition, used
by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crimes.

We prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam."