Right wing talk radio host out of Chicago known as "mancow" agreed to be
waterboarded. He was like all the rest of the right wingers in his view that
waterboarding was nothing to get worked up over and didn't amount to
torture. So how long do you think he was able to stand up to this not very
bothersome treatment? Little more than six seconds and 12 ounces of water
and he'd had enough. After the treatment he said that he hated to admit it
but it was indeed torture. He said it was really drowning. So there you have
it. Another winger tries waterboarding himself and quickly changes his tune
and joins the rest of the world in calling it torture. All of this was
recorded and I saw it myself so I know it's true. The question now is when
does Sean Hannity try it? He did say on his show that he wasn't afraid to be
waterboarded and Keith Olbermann has said he'll give a thousand dollars to
charity for every second that Hannity is waterboarded. Any bets that Hannity
won't weasel out of it?

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
news
Right wing talk radio host out of Chicago known as "mancow" agreed to be
waterboarded. He was like all the rest of the right wingers in his view
that
waterboarding was nothing to get worked up over and didn't amount to
torture. So how long do you think he was able to stand up to this not very
bothersome treatment? Little more than six seconds and 12 ounces of water
and he'd had enough. After the treatment he said that he hated to admit it
but it was indeed torture. He said it was really drowning. So there you
have
it. Another winger tries waterboarding himself and quickly changes his
tune
and joins the rest of the world in calling it torture. All of this was
recorded and I saw it myself so I know it's true. The question now is when
does Sean Hannity try it? He did say on his show that he wasn't afraid to
be
waterboarded and Keith Olbermann has said he'll give a thousand dollars to
charity for every second that Hannity is waterboarded. Any bets that
Hannity
won't weasel out of it?

Hawke



I guess it's official now that some DJ from Obamaland didn't like getting
wet.

The unusual fact about the right winger "mancow", is that he is
honest. He lasted only 12 seconds, I probably would, as well, but abu
Zubayda and KSM lasted for over a hundred waterboardings. Food for
thought. The video of mancow being waterboarded is interesting too.

i

On 2009-05-23, Hawke wrote:
Right wing talk radio host out of Chicago known as "mancow" agreed to be
waterboarded. He was like all the rest of the right wingers in his view that
waterboarding was nothing to get worked up over and didn't amount to
torture. So how long do you think he was able to stand up to this not very
bothersome treatment? Little more than six seconds and 12 ounces of water
and he'd had enough. After the treatment he said that he hated to admit it
but it was indeed torture. He said it was really drowning. So there you have
it. Another winger tries waterboarding himself and quickly changes his tune
and joins the rest of the world in calling it torture. All of this was
recorded and I saw it myself so I know it's true. The question now is when
does Sean Hannity try it? He did say on his show that he wasn't afraid to be
waterboarded and Keith Olbermann has said he'll give a thousand dollars to
charity for every second that Hannity is waterboarded. Any bets that Hannity
won't weasel out of it?

Hawke

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sportspros...erboarded.html

Guy and Hitchens are also here.

JC

"Ignoramus17277" wrote in message
...
The unusual fact about the right winger "mancow", is that he is
honest. He lasted only 12 seconds, I probably would, as well, but abu
Zubayda and KSM lasted for over a hundred waterboardings. Food for
thought. The video of mancow being waterboarded is interesting too.

i

On 2009-05-23, Hawke wrote:
Right wing talk radio host out of Chicago known as "mancow" agreed to be
waterboarded. He was like all the rest of the right wingers in his view
that
waterboarding was nothing to get worked up over and didn't amount to
torture. So how long do you think he was able to stand up to this not
very
bothersome treatment? Little more than six seconds and 12 ounces of water
and he'd had enough. After the treatment he said that he hated to admit
it
but it was indeed torture. He said it was really drowning. So there you
have
it. Another winger tries waterboarding himself and quickly changes his
tune
and joins the rest of the world in calling it torture. All of this was
recorded and I saw it myself so I know it's true. The question now is
when
does Sean Hannity try it? He did say on his show that he wasn't afraid to
be
waterboarded and Keith Olbermann has said he'll give a thousand dollars
to
charity for every second that Hannity is waterboarded. Any bets that
Hannity
won't weasel out of it?

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
news
Right wing talk radio host out of Chicago known as "mancow" agreed to be
waterboarded. He was like all the rest of the right wingers in his view
that
waterboarding was nothing to get worked up over and didn't amount to
torture. So how long do you think he was able to stand up to this not very
bothersome treatment? Little more than six seconds and 12 ounces of water
and he'd had enough. After the treatment he said that he hated to admit it
but it was indeed torture. He said it was really drowning. So there you
have
it. Another winger tries waterboarding himself and quickly changes his
tune
and joins the rest of the world in calling it torture. All of this was
recorded and I saw it myself so I know it's true. The question now is when
does Sean Hannity try it? He did say on his show that he wasn't afraid to
be
waterboarded and Keith Olbermann has said he'll give a thousand dollars to
charity for every second that Hannity is waterboarded. Any bets that
Hannity
won't weasel out of it?

Hawke



It's shameful that we waterboarded those three terrorists! We should buy
them a condo in Miami, give them monthly checks and white women!

On Sat, 23 May 2009 06:46:37 -0400, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:


"Hawke" wrote in message
news
Right wing talk radio host out of Chicago known as "mancow" agreed to be
waterboarded. He was like all the rest of the right wingers in his view
that
waterboarding was nothing to get worked up over and didn't amount to
torture. So how long do you think he was able to stand up to this not very
bothersome treatment? Little more than six seconds and 12 ounces of water
and he'd had enough. After the treatment he said that he hated to admit it
but it was indeed torture. He said it was really drowning. So there you
have
it. Another winger tries waterboarding himself and quickly changes his
tune
and joins the rest of the world in calling it torture. All of this was
recorded and I saw it myself so I know it's true. The question now is when
does Sean Hannity try it? He did say on his show that he wasn't afraid to
be
waterboarded and Keith Olbermann has said he'll give a thousand dollars to
charity for every second that Hannity is waterboarded. Any bets that
Hannity
won't weasel out of it?

Hawke



It's shameful that we waterboarded those three terrorists! We should buy
them a condo in Miami, give them monthly checks and white women!

What? Haven't you heard how much welfare recipients resent that? It's
not nearly good enough for the elitist snobs. What else can we add to
make it more fair to them? ;

P.S: Finding 72 virgins for each of the three might be a chore.

--
"The latest documents released this week showed
that priests with drug, alcohol and sexual abuse
problems continued in the ministry as recently as
two years ago. That doesn't sound like a church,
it sounds like Congress with holy water." -Jay Leno

Buerste wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
news
Right wing talk radio host out of Chicago known as "mancow" agreed to be
waterboarded. He was like all the rest of the right wingers in his view
that
waterboarding was nothing to get worked up over and didn't amount to
torture. So how long do you think he was able to stand up to this not very
bothersome treatment? Little more than six seconds and 12 ounces of water
and he'd had enough. After the treatment he said that he hated to admit it
but it was indeed torture. He said it was really drowning. So there you
have
it. Another winger tries waterboarding himself and quickly changes his
tune
and joins the rest of the world in calling it torture. All of this was
recorded and I saw it myself so I know it's true. The question now is when
does Sean Hannity try it? He did say on his show that he wasn't afraid to
be
waterboarded and Keith Olbermann has said he'll give a thousand dollars to
charity for every second that Hannity is waterboarded. Any bets that
Hannity
won't weasel out of it?

Hawke



It's shameful that we waterboarded those three terrorists!

It certainly is, it showed that America had fallen to the same depths as
our worst enemies.


We should buy
them a condo in Miami, give them monthly checks and white women!

Why couldn't we have just kept interrogating them with the FBI as we had
been doing, which the FBI says was yielding results? Perhaps you are
not aware, but the FBI and CIA both claim that the torture was not
effective and only slowed down the process of getting good intel out of
them.

The torture was introduced by contractors who had No experience with
interrogation.

Not torturing is nothing like giving a condo in Miami.

Stuart Wheaton wrote:

Why couldn't we have just kept interrogating them with the FBI as we had
been doing, which the FBI says was yielding results? Perhaps you are
not aware, but the FBI and CIA both claim that the torture was not
effective and only slowed down the process of getting good intel out of
them.

The torture was introduced by contractors who had No experience with
interrogation.

Not torturing is nothing like giving a condo in Miami.


I wonder if we fed them oatmeal 3 times a day if after a month or so, a big mac might have
got them to fess up? Oh hell, we did that, at least the fast food bribes.

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

Why couldn't we have just kept interrogating them with the FBI as we had
been doing, which the FBI says was yielding results? Perhaps you are
not aware, but the FBI and CIA both claim that the torture was not
effective and only slowed down the process of getting good intel out of
them.

The torture was introduced by contractors who had No experience with
interrogation.

Not torturing is nothing like giving a condo in Miami.


I wonder if we fed them oatmeal 3 times a day if after a month or so, a
big mac might have
got them to fess up? Oh hell, we did that, at least the fast food bribes.

Wes

By the way, the Israelis are reputed to be the best at getting information
out of people, and they don't use torture. Want to guess what they have
found works best to get people to give them the information they want from
them? It really makes sense too. The Israelis have found that providing sex
and money work great at getting what they want out of just about everyone.
Those Jews are smart. Been doing this kind of thing for a long time too so
they know what really works. Torture just makes people say anything to make
it stop, which is why it's not reliable. If we didn't have such fools in
power we would have never used it and we would have gotten just as good
information as we did by using it.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


Why couldn't we have just kept interrogating them with the FBI as we had
been doing, which the FBI says was yielding results? Perhaps you are
not aware, but the FBI and CIA both claim that the torture was not
effective and only slowed down the process of getting good intel out of
them.

The torture was introduced by contractors who had No experience with
interrogation.

Not torturing is nothing like giving a condo in Miami.


I wonder if we fed them oatmeal 3 times a day if after a month or so, a
big mac might have
got them to fess up? Oh hell, we did that, at least the fast food
bribes.

Wes

By the way, the Israelis are reputed to be the best at getting information
out of people, and they don't use torture. Want to guess what they have
found works best to get people to give them the information they want from
them? It really makes sense too. The Israelis have found that providing
sex
and money work great at getting what they want out of just about everyone.
Those Jews are smart. Been doing this kind of thing for a long time too so
they know what really works. Torture just makes people say anything to
make
it stop, which is why it's not reliable. If we didn't have such fools in
power we would have never used it and we would have gotten just as good
information as we did by using it.

Hawke



You should go have sex with your Man-cow and see if you can milk him for
more information.

"Hawke" wrote in message
news
Right wing talk radio host out of Chicago known as "mancow" agreed to be
waterboarded. He was like all the rest of the right wingers in his view
that
waterboarding was nothing to get worked up over and didn't amount to
torture. So how long do you think he was able to stand up to this not very
bothersome treatment? Little more than six seconds and 12 ounces of water
and he'd had enough. After the treatment he said that he hated to admit it
but it was indeed torture. He said it was really drowning. So there you
have
it. Another winger tries waterboarding himself and quickly changes his
tune
and joins the rest of the world in calling it torture. All of this was
recorded and I saw it myself so I know it's true. The question now is when
does Sean Hannity try it? He did say on his show that he wasn't afraid to
be
waterboarded and Keith Olbermann has said he'll give a thousand dollars to
charity for every second that Hannity is waterboarded. Any bets that
Hannity
won't weasel out of it?

Hawke



Your Man-cow is a pussy. You shouldn't be screwing cow pussies you freak.

On May 23, 1:01*am, Ignoramus17277 ignoramus17...@NOSPAM.
17277.invalid wrote:
The unusual fact about the right winger "mancow", is that he is
honest. He lasted only 12 seconds, I probably would, as well, but abu
Zubayda and KSM lasted for over a hundred waterboardings. Food for
thought. The video of mancow being waterboarded is interesting too.

i

On 2009-05-23, Hawke wrote:

Right wing talk radio host out of Chicago known as "mancow" agreed to be
waterboarded. He was like all the rest of the right wingers in his view that
waterboarding was nothing to get worked up over and didn't amount to
torture. So how long do you think he was able to stand up to this not very
bothersome treatment? Little more than six seconds and 12 ounces of water
and he'd had enough. After the treatment he said that he hated to admit it
but it was indeed torture. He said it was really drowning. So there you have
it. Another winger tries waterboarding himself and quickly changes his tune
and joins the rest of the world in calling it torture. All of this was
recorded and I saw it myself so I know it's true. The question now is when
does Sean Hannity try it? He did say on his show that he wasn't afraid to be
waterboarded and Keith Olbermann has said he'll give a thousand dollars to
charity for every second that Hannity is waterboarded. Any bets that Hannity
won't weasel out of it?

Hawke

Any reports on what info they gave relative to how many times they
were waterboarded?

Dave

On 2009-05-27, wrote:

Any reports on what info they gave relative to how many times they
were waterboarded?


Based on what I read in the news, which may or may not be true, they
did not give any info despite being waterboarded over 100 times. There
is two explanations why, one is that by the time they were
waterboarded, they already shared everything that they knew, and
another is that they kept their secrets despite being
waterboarded. The former is somewhat more likely, in my opinion.

i

(Edward A. Falk) wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:

Here's a paradox for you:

Experts say that torture does not produce reliable information because
the victim will say anything to get it to stop.

Many wingers claim that waterboarding is not torture.

So, if you waterboarded such a winger until they admitted that it was
torture, what would it mean?


That you're a Liberal.

--

I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules.

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:50:14 -0500, "Basil Karlo"
wrote:



"Edward A. Falk" wrote in message
...
Here's a paradox for you:

Experts say that torture does not produce reliable information because
the victim will say anything to get it to stop.


Ignoring the rest of this post I wonder whether there is a valid
reference for that statement.

Obviously, as torture has existed throughout recorded history - the
Romans even had some laws that concerned the subject - it seems to
have produced some sort of evidence that it was a viable solution to a
problem.

After all the Russians seemed to be able to get individuals to make
statements that doomed that individual to death. There are many many
stories about old time police "beating confessions out of people".

So, if you can get people to make a confession that incarcerates or
dooms them it should be equally as possible to get that individual to
tell the truth.

As no intelligent interrogator actually believes anything that is said
during an interrogation unless it is backed up by collaborating
evidence if the above thesis is correct it means that all of the
individuals questioned told the same lie.

After all, if you torture a guy and he tells you that "my guys are
waiting by the river to ambush you" and so you go the other way and
the bad guys ambush you it seems like you might get a glimmer that
this technique wasn't working.

I suggest that it does work and leaves it up to the interrogator to
sort out the truth from the lies - just as any interrogation technique
does.



Cheers,

John B.
(jbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On 2009-06-02, John D Slocomb wrote:
After all the Russians seemed to be able to get individuals to make
statements that doomed that individual to death. There are many many
stories about old time police "beating confessions out of people".

As far as I know. most such confessions were produced by sleep
deprivation. Other forms of torture were also used, but sleep
deprivation worked very reliably.

I consider sleep deprivation torture, as it induces unbearable
suffering and can lead to death.

In any case, sleep deprivation and other forms of torture could make
most normal people confess to anything that interrogators would
desire. The issue is, 1) that it is much harder to obtain reliable
information from tortured subjects, as opposed to "any confession",
and 2) that no court would admit evidence obtained under torture, so
any action against tortured people would need to be done
extralegally.

So, if you can get people to make a confession that incarcerates or
dooms them it should be equally as possible to get that individual to
tell the truth.

As no intelligent interrogator actually believes anything that is said
during an interrogation unless it is backed up by collaborating
evidence if the above thesis is correct it means that all of the
individuals questioned told the same lie.

After all, if you torture a guy and he tells you that "my guys are
waiting by the river to ambush you" and so you go the other way and
the bad guys ambush you it seems like you might get a glimmer that
this technique wasn't working.

I suggest that it does work and leaves it up to the interrogator to
sort out the truth from the lies - just as any interrogation technique
does.

This is hard to tell with any certainty until you tortured a number of
motivated people. Any truth on this would be difficult to come by.

i

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:29:11 -0500, Ignoramus17163
wrote:

On 2009-06-02, John D Slocomb wrote:
After all the Russians seemed to be able to get individuals to make
statements that doomed that individual to death. There are many many
stories about old time police "beating confessions out of people".

I suggest that it does work and leaves it up to the interrogator to
sort out the truth from the lies - just as any interrogation technique
does.

This is hard to tell with any certainty until you tortured a number of
motivated people. Any truth on this would be difficult to come by.


I can only comment that at the end of the Korean war I was in Japan
and one of our crews was returned to the Squadron after they were
liberated. The Squadron held a sort of "welcome home" thing where the
crew told the Squadron about being captured and being prisoners. The
Aircraft commander stated that after they had dragged him out and beat
him for some time he "told them what they wanted to know".

Subsequent conversation with one of the enlisted crew members revealed
that they literally dragged the A.C. out and beat and kicked him into
unconsciousness day after day.... until he talked.

I think that it would work.

Cheers,

John B.
(jbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Jun 2, 12:13*am, John D. Slocomb
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:29:11 -0500, Ignoramus17163

wrote:
On 2009-06-02, John D *Slocomb wrote:
After all the Russians seemed to be able to get individuals to make
statements that doomed that individual to death. There are many many
stories about old time police "beating confessions out of people".
I suggest that it does work and leaves it up to the interrogator to
sort out the truth from the lies - just as any interrogation technique
does.

This is hard to tell with any certainty until you tortured a number of
motivated people. Any truth on this would be difficult to come by.

I can only comment that at the end of the Korean war I was in Japan
and one of our crews was returned to the *Squadron after they were
liberated. The Squadron held a sort of "welcome home" thing where the
crew told the Squadron about being captured and being prisoners. The
Aircraft commander stated that after they had dragged him out and beat
him for some time he "told them what they wanted to know".

Subsequent conversation with one of the enlisted crew members revealed
that they literally dragged the A.C. out and beat and kicked him into
unconsciousness day after day.... *until he talked.

I think that it would work.

Cheers,

John B.
(jbslocombatgmaildotcom)

So, he told them what they wanted to know. But did he tell them the
truth?

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 21:22:20 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:13*am, John D. Slocomb
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:29:11 -0500, Ignoramus17163

wrote:
On 2009-06-02, John D *Slocomb wrote:
After all the Russians seemed to be able to get individuals to make
statements that doomed that individual to death. There are many many
stories about old time police "beating confessions out of people".
I suggest that it does work and leaves it up to the interrogator to
sort out the truth from the lies - just as any interrogation technique
does.

This is hard to tell with any certainty until you tortured a number of
motivated people. Any truth on this would be difficult to come by.

I can only comment that at the end of the Korean war I was in Japan
and one of our crews was returned to the *Squadron after they were
liberated. The Squadron held a sort of "welcome home" thing where the
crew told the Squadron about being captured and being prisoners. The
Aircraft commander stated that after they had dragged him out and beat
him for some time he "told them what they wanted to know".

Subsequent conversation with one of the enlisted crew members revealed
that they literally dragged the A.C. out and beat and kicked him into
unconsciousness day after day.... *until he talked.

I think that it would work.

Cheers,

John B.
(jbslocombatgmaildotcom)

So, he told them what they wanted to know. But did he tell them the
truth?


The question never arose. The A.C. said pretty much what I wrote and
nobody commented. At the time I assumed that he had told them the
truth.

I'm not sure that anyone can withstand being interrogated in a prison
camp run by people that you know don't really care whether they kill
you or not. The poor diet, lack of rest, generally lousy physical
condition and constant beatings will (I'm sure) result in you telling
them what they want to know.


Cheers,

John B.
(jbslocombatgmaildotcom)

In article ,
Ignoramus17163 wrote:

On 2009-06-02, John D Slocomb wrote:
After all the Russians seemed to be able to get individuals to make
statements that doomed that individual to death. There are many many
stories about old time police "beating confessions out of people".

As far as I know. most such confessions were produced by sleep
deprivation. Other forms of torture were also used, but sleep
deprivation worked very reliably.

I consider sleep deprivation torture, as it induces unbearable
suffering and can lead to death.

In any case, sleep deprivation and other forms of torture could make
most normal people confess to anything that interrogators would
desire. The issue is, 1) that it is much harder to obtain reliable
information from tortured subjects, as opposed to "any confession",
and 2) that no court would admit evidence obtained under torture, so
any action against tortured people would need to be done
extralegally.

I think what's missing from the debate is that justice and intelligence
have different objectives.

Justice needs testimony that will stand up in court, at least in the
West, and there is ample history showing you can get people to confess
to almost anything if you beat them badly enough, so coerced confessions
have dubious value. Unless the intent is to punish the person
regardless. But then the intent isn't justice.

Intelligence needs leads, leads that will be checked out and verified,
and it really doesn't matter if those leads are 1% of the desperate
blather coming from the suspect. Nor does it matter if these leads are
hearsay or worse. And, one can go back to the suspect and throw the
failed leads in his face, and tell him that he must do better, etc,
until he has been squeezed dry. The point is to understand a secret
organization, and to frustrate its goals and operations.

Joe Gwinn

On Jun 2, 12:58*am, John D. Slocomb
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 21:22:20 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck



wrote:
On Jun 2, 12:13*am, John D. Slocomb
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:29:11 -0500, Ignoramus17163

wrote:
On 2009-06-02, John D *Slocomb wrote:
After all the Russians seemed to be able to get individuals to make
statements that doomed that individual to death. There are many many
stories about old time police "beating confessions out of people".
I suggest that it does work and leaves it up to the interrogator to
sort out the truth from the lies - just as any interrogation technique
does.

This is hard to tell with any certainty until you tortured a number of
motivated people. Any truth on this would be difficult to come by.

I can only comment that at the end of the Korean war I was in Japan
and one of our crews was returned to the *Squadron after they were
liberated. The Squadron held a sort of "welcome home" thing where the
crew told the Squadron about being captured and being prisoners. The
Aircraft commander stated that after they had dragged him out and beat
him for some time he "told them what they wanted to know".

Subsequent conversation with one of the enlisted crew members revealed
that they literally dragged the A.C. out and beat and kicked him into
unconsciousness day after day.... *until he talked.

I think that it would work.

Cheers,

John B.
(jbslocombatgmaildotcom)

So, he told them what they wanted to know. But did he tell them the
truth?

The question never arose. The A.C. said pretty much what I wrote and
nobody commented. At the time I assumed that he had told them the
truth.

I'm not sure that anyone can withstand being interrogated in a prison
camp run by people that you know don't really care whether they kill
you or not. The poor diet, lack of rest, generally lousy physical
condition and constant beatings will (I'm sure) result in you telling
them what they want to know.

Cheers,

John B.
(jbslocombatgmaildotcom)

No, you'll tell them what they want to HEAR, to get them to stop,
which may be very different from what they want to know. And THAT is
the problem with with information gained from tortured prisoners.

rangerssuck wrote:

No, you'll tell them what they want to HEAR, to get them to stop,
which may be very different from what they want to know. And THAT is
the problem with with information gained from tortured prisoners.


So, how long were YOU tortured?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Jun 3, 5:13*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

No, you'll tell them what they want to HEAR, to get them to stop,
which may be very different from what they want to know. And THAT is
the problem with with information gained from tortured prisoners.

* *So, how long were YOU tortured?

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

When did I ever claim to have been tortured? What I meant was that it
makes sense that a person being tortured, in order to make it stop,
would tell the torturer what said torturer wanted to hear in order
stop. If someone is beating me over the head telling me he'll stop if
I tell him the moon is made of green cheese, I'm not going to give him
a dissertation on the composition of moon rocks.
..

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:13:07 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

No, you'll tell them what they want to HEAR, to get them to stop,
which may be very different from what they want to know. And THAT is
the problem with with information gained from tortured prisoners.

So, how long were YOU tortured?

I'd ask the same of those who say waterboarding "isn't torture". Let
them be subjected to it in the same fashion it's been inflicted on the
captives, and _THEN_ say it's not torture.

I believe that if America ever wants to regain any kind of National
Pride, or Self-Respect, and any modicum of respect from the rest of the
world, we should renounce anything that even _LOOKS_ like torture,
because:

A. Torture is evil.
B. We're supposed to be _BETTER_ than that.

Thanks,
Rich

rangerssuck wrote:

On Jun 3, 5:13 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

No, you'll tell them what they want to HEAR, to get them to stop,
which may be very different from what they want to know. And THAT is
the problem with with information gained from tortured prisoners.

So, how long were YOU tortured?

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

When did I ever claim to have been tortured?


Then you really don't know what you would do.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Jun 4, 3:55*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

On Jun 3, 5:13 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

No, you'll tell them what they want to HEAR, to get them to stop,
which may be very different from what they want to know. And THAT is
the problem with with information gained from tortured prisoners.

* *So, how long were YOU tortured?

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

When did I ever claim to have been tortured?

* *Then you really don't know what you would do.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Oh give it a rest. I guess you'd just give them name rank and serial
number until you died. Good for you. As for me, I'd tell them anything
they asked me to tell them, right up front, just to avoid the
inevitable. Call me a wimp if you want, but that's my plan.

By the way, my brother, who served in an elite tank corps in the
Israeli army, told me that they were instructed, if captured, to tell
them anything they wanted to hear, to admit to anything they wanted,
to sign confessions of war crimes, and if possible, to do it in
public, on TV.

Take it from someone who HAS been waterboarded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoqmH49VBC0

On Jun 3, 8:16*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:13:07 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

No, you'll tell them what they want to HEAR, to get them to stop,
which may be very different from what they want to know. And THAT is
the problem with with information gained from tortured prisoners.

* *So, how long were YOU tortured?

I'd ask the same of those who say waterboarding "isn't torture". Let
them be subjected to it in the same fashion it's been inflicted on the
captives, and _THEN_ say it's not torture.

I believe that if America ever wants to regain any kind of National
Pride, or Self-Respect, and any modicum of respect from the rest of the
world, we should renounce anything that even _LOOKS_ like torture,
because:

A. Torture is evil.
B. We're supposed to be _BETTER_ than that.

Thanks,
Rich

You'd be surprised how many do not give a rats ass about our moral
standing. Muslim terrorists cut off someone's head, so lets throw all
our moral standing out the goddamn window because, hey, it's not like
we're cutting off someone's head.

I call those who support using torture cowards, more cowardly than any
terrorist.

Dave

rangerssuck wrote:

On Jun 4, 3:55 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

On Jun 3, 5:13 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

No, you'll tell them what they want to HEAR, to get them to stop,
which may be very different from what they want to know. And THAT is
the problem with with information gained from tortured prisoners.

So, how long were YOU tortured?

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

When did I ever claim to have been tortured?

Then you really don't know what you would do.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Oh give it a rest. I guess you'd just give them name rank and serial
number until you died. Good for you. As for me, I'd tell them anything
they asked me to tell them, right up front, just to avoid the
inevitable. Call me a wimp if you want, but that's my plan.


i never made any claim as to what i would do, and no one really knows
how they will react to torture.


By the way, my brother, who served in an elite tank corps in the
Israeli army, told me that they were instructed, if captured, to tell
them anything they wanted to hear, to admit to anything they wanted,
to sign confessions of war crimes, and if possible, to do it in
public, on TV.

Take it from someone who HAS been waterboarded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoqmH49VBC0


You take it. That is just one person's opinion.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!