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.

"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, 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 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

"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

"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?

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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, 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

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

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/

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 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

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?

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

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?