Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 02:33 am
blatham wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Turns out only three prisoner were water-boarded. All were high level members of Al Qaeda, and one boasted of cutting of Daniel Pearl's head.
They gave quite a lot of important information and at least one only required two minutes of the technique.


Did you burp after swallowing all that, finn?


This one of the reasons so many discussion in this forum are pointless. People will always feel that that an acceptable last retort is like the one blatham used.

"They're lying!"

"You fell for that?"

"That's what they want you to believe."

"They can manipulate the media"

"They would never tell the truth about something like that."

"Did you burp after swallowing all that?"
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 05:08 am
Another reason that so many of these discussion fora are pointless is that some members are so hopelessly sold out to one or another ideology that they reduce themselves to no more than obnoxious caricatures who will blindly defend even torture.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 07:59 am
Torture Is Impeachable and Has Been Confessed to

After Downing St
Sunday February 10, 2008

From Head On Radio Network

Now that George Bush and Michael Hayden have publicly confessed to government waterboarding in a press conference on February 6, 2008, and in testimony before Congress on February 5, 2008, you may find the following information useful:

The law review article referenced below (available at no cost at: http://www.law.utah.edu/_webfiles/ULRarticles/150/150.pdf ) makes clear that waterboarding is torture and is a crime and a war crime punishable under a number of treaties to which the United States is a party and several U.S. statutes.

The article also explains
Webpage Title
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:56 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Turns out only three prisoner were water-boarded. All were high level members of Al Qaeda, and one boasted of cutting of Daniel Pearl's head.
They gave quite a lot of important information and at least one only required two minutes of the technique.


Did you burp after swallowing all that, finn?


This one of the reasons so many discussion in this forum are pointless. People will always feel that that an acceptable last retort is like the one blatham used.

"They're lying!"

"You fell for that?"

"That's what they want you to believe."

"They can manipulate the media"

"They would never tell the truth about something like that."

"Did you burp after swallowing all that?"


But they did lie. They claimed that it never happened. Then they claimed that it wasn't authorized. Then they claimed that there weren't any tapes of it. Then they claimed the tapes were destroyed all on one guy's idea.

So when you swallow the current 'lie of the week(tm)!' it's a little sad.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 11:38 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:


This one of the reasons so many discussion in this forum are pointless. People will always feel that that an acceptable last retort is like the one blatham used.



Finn,

That you would try to deflect this away from you and your odious comments/ideas simply reflects just how depraved your sense of morality is.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 11:50 am
snood wrote:
Another reason that so many of these discussion fora are pointless is that some members are so hopelessly sold out to one or another ideology that they reduce themselves to no more than obnoxious caricatures who will blindly defend even torture.


This is pure and odious ad hominem.

Nothing is to be gained by responding to it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 11:51 am
JTT wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:


This one of the reasons so many discussion in this forum are pointless. People will always feel that that an acceptable last retort is like the one blatham used.



Finn,

That you would try to deflect this away from you and your odious comments/ideas simply reflects just how depraved your sense of morality is.


This is pure and odious ad hominem.

Nothing is to be gained by responding to it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 12:01 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Turns out only three prisoner were water-boarded. All were high level members of Al Qaeda, and one boasted of cutting of Daniel Pearl's head.
They gave quite a lot of important information and at least one only required two minutes of the technique.


Did you burp after swallowing all that, finn?


This one of the reasons so many discussion in this forum are pointless. People will always feel that that an acceptable last retort is like the one blatham used.

"They're lying!"

"You fell for that?"

"That's what they want you to believe."

"They can manipulate the media"

"They would never tell the truth about something like that."

"Did you burp after swallowing all that?"


But they did lie. They claimed that it never happened. Then they claimed that it wasn't authorized. Then they claimed that there weren't any tapes of it. Then they claimed the tapes were destroyed all on one guy's idea.

So when you swallow the current 'lie of the week(tm)!' it's a little sad.

Cycloptichorn


Well cheer up Cyclo, it looks like there's a good chance that come Jan 2009 we'll have truckloads of statements from a Democratic administration to endlessly parse in search of lies. Some will probably even be clear for all to see. Somehow I suspect your x-ray vision for the truth will not work as well, but you needn't worry there will plenty of others who will pick up the slack.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 12:11 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Turns out only three prisoner were water-boarded. All were high level members of Al Qaeda, and one boasted of cutting of Daniel Pearl's head.
They gave quite a lot of important information and at least one only required two minutes of the technique.


Did you burp after swallowing all that, finn?


This one of the reasons so many discussion in this forum are pointless. People will always feel that that an acceptable last retort is like the one blatham used.

"They're lying!"

"You fell for that?"

"That's what they want you to believe."

"They can manipulate the media"

"They would never tell the truth about something like that."

"Did you burp after swallowing all that?"


Come on finn. All you've done here is quote the administration. Please don't try to pretend that you are forwarding either truth or knowledge.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 12:41 pm
blatham wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Turns out only three prisoner were water-boarded. All were high level members of Al Qaeda, and one boasted of cutting of Daniel Pearl's head.
They gave quite a lot of important information and at least one only required two minutes of the technique.


Did you burp after swallowing all that, finn?


This one of the reasons so many discussion in this forum are pointless. People will always feel that that an acceptable last retort is like the one blatham used.

"They're lying!"

"You fell for that?"

"That's what they want you to believe."

"They can manipulate the media"

"They would never tell the truth about something like that."

"Did you burp after swallowing all that?"


Come on finn. All you've done here is quote the administration. Please don't try to pretend that you are forwarding either truth or knowledge.


blatham

I have previously addressed in detail my opinions on this subject. The Administration using the technique sparingly on high value targets possessed of information that had life and death significance, is in keeping with the manner in which I support waterboarding.

I appreciate that you, snood, cyclo and JTT wish to believe the tactic has been used indiscriminately and with great frequency, but sometime ago I reached the judgment that Michael Hayden is an honorable and truthful individual, and therefore I believe him when he reported it has been used three times and on the three individuals indicated.

I'm not sure why it matters whether or not Hayden is lying and I believe him given that your position seems to be that waterboarding is never acceptable. It can't be that if Hayden is telling the truth you might reconsider your position, can it?

I certainly don't mind your barbs, they're occassionally witty and help keep me sharp, but I have gotten quite tired of the frequent use in this forum of the self-serving argument that one cannot rely upon any information provided by the administration because they lie about everything. It's smug, and intellectually lazy.

It would be acceptable if there was reason to believe that the people who use this argument don't believe in the veracity of anyone who is highly motivated by political dynamics, but of course that's not the case.

(with the possible exception of blueflame)
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 12:48 pm
Finn dAbuzz, I got opinions for sure based on events we all lived through one day at a time. No surprise I'm sure that I say there's overwhelming evidence against Bushie and Blair and a bunch of their cohorts for crimes against humanity.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 01:31 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Finn dAbuzz, I got opinions for sure based on events we all lived through one day at a time. No surprise I'm sure that I say there's overwhelming evidence against Bushie and Blair and a bunch of their cohorts for crimes against humanity.


My point is that I do not believe you allow patisan politics to dictate who you believe and who you do not. I could be wrong, but my impression is that you don't believe much of anything any politican has to say.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 01:49 pm
Finn dAbuzz, oh. Well I agree. All the talk of change in this election is a joke imo. But maybe Obama will fool me and do some things.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 06:53 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
JTT wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:


This one of the reasons so many discussion in this forum are pointless. People will always feel that that an acceptable last retort is like the one blatham used.



Finn,

That you would try to deflect this away from you and your odious comments/ideas simply reflects just how depraved your sense of morality is.


This is pure and odious ad hominem.

Nothing is to be gained by responding to it.


Of course you don't want to respond to someone pointing up just how depraved you are, Finn. You're a hypocrite, a self serving, US-serving hypocrite, with no sense of justice.

You are, like george, tico, mcg and the rest, all that's wrong with the USA. It's shortsighted attitudes like yours that have brought violence to your shores. It won't end, it can't end as long as ignorance like yours continues.

In the next posting I'm gonna tell how I really feel. Smile
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 07:14 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:


I appreciate that you, snood, cyclo and JTT wish to believe the tactic has been used indiscriminately and with great frequency, but sometime ago I reached the judgment that Michael Hayden is an honorable and truthful individual, and therefore I believe him when he reported it has been used three times and on the three individuals indicated.

I'm not sure why it matters whether or not Hayden is lying and I believe him given that your position seems to be that waterboarding is never acceptable. It can't be that if Hayden is telling the truth you might reconsider your position, can it?


Did this insightful "judgment" that you've been blessed with lead to believe that Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell, Rice, ... were honorable individuals?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 07:46 pm
Why It Was Called 'Water Torture'

By Richard E. Mezo
Sunday, February 10, 2008; Page B07

Last week, much to my dismay, government officials testified before Congress that the United States has used the interrogation technique known as waterboarding and would like to hold out the option of using it in the future. As someone who has experienced waterboarding, albeit in a controlled setting, I know that the act is indeed torture. I was waterboarded during my training to become a Navy flight crew member. As has been noted in The Post and other media outlets, waterboarding is "real drowning that simulates death." It's an experience our country should not subject people to.

In February 1963, I was ordered from the Naval Air Station in Alameda, Calif., to Whidbey Island, Wash., for survival training. Part of the week-long program was a brief incarceration in a simulated prisoner-of-war camp; at that time, the program was modeled on events that had occurred during the Korean War. First we were to be "held" in a mock North Korean camp and later transferred to a Chinese camp.

The enlisted men who supervised the training worked to make the situation realistic, and they succeeded in convincing me that I never wanted to become a prisoner of war. I recall that after our "capture," the sailors -- wearing Red Army uniforms -- marched the dozen or so of us along the ocean without our boots. It was very cold, and all our resolve and determination could not prevent our courage from eventually draining out through our wet feet. They took us to a compound of small huts with dirt floors. The camp was surrounded by barbed wire, and the entrance was guarded by armed soldiers.

Several times that night I was on the verge of speaking out, of trying to call the whole thing off, and I suspect that I was not the only one. We held on because none of us trainees wanted to be the person to quit. The camp had an array of torture devices, including the infamous "black box" (which I actually liked because it was the only time I was off the ground and not miserably cold), and our captors also threatened executions, though we had the comfort of knowing that they would not carry through on such threats.

We were all interrogated a few times, some of us more than others. During one interrogation, I was led blindfolded into a room. Suddenly one of the "enemy" hit me hard in the stomach -- a sucker punch that left me doubled over, out of breath. I think three other people were present, but I was never sure. Two men grabbed me at my sides. They put a pole of some kind under my knees and bent me over backward. My head went down lower than the rest of my body.

The questions (What is your unit? Where are you from?) were asked by one man. But we were not supposed to talk. I remember that the blindfold was heavy and completely covered my face. As the two men held me down, one on each side, someone began pouring water onto the blindfold, and suddenly I was drowning. The water streamed into my nose and then into my mouth when I gasped for breath. I couldn't stop it. All I could breathe was water, and it was terrifying. I think I began to lose consciousness. I felt my lungs begin to fill with burning liquid.

Pulling out my fingernails or even cutting off a finger would have been preferable. At least if someone had attacked my hands, I would have had to simply tolerate pain. But drowning is another matter.

Even though I knew that I was in a military facility and that my "captors" would not kill me, no matter what they threatened, my body sensed and reacted to the danger it was in. Adrenaline helped me to fight out of the position the men were holding me in. I can't really explain how I managed to stand up, still with one man clinging to each arm. I only know how horrible it was. The experience was probably only a few minutes, but to me it seemed much longer.

Waterboarding has, unfortunately, become a household word. Back then, we didn't call it waterboarding -- we called it "water torture." We recognized it as something the United States would never do, whatever the provocation. As a nation, we must ask our leaders, elected and appointed, to be aware of such horrors; we must ask them to stop the narrow and superficial thinking that hinges upon "legal" definitions and to use common sense. Waterboarding is torture, and torture is clearly a crime against humanity.
link
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 07:57 pm
finn wrote:
Quote:
blatham

I have previously addressed in detail my opinions on this subject. The Administration using the technique sparingly on high value targets possessed of information that had life and death significance, is in keeping with the manner in which I support waterboarding.

I appreciate that you, snood, cyclo and JTT wish to believe the tactic has been used indiscriminately and with great frequency, but sometime ago I reached the judgment that Michael Hayden is an honorable and truthful individual, and therefore I believe him when he reported it has been used three times and on the three individuals indicated.

I'm not sure why it matters whether or not Hayden is lying and I believe him given that your position seems to be that waterboarding is never acceptable. It can't be that if Hayden is telling the truth you might reconsider your position, can it?

I certainly don't mind your barbs, they're occassionally witty and help keep me sharp, but I have gotten quite tired of the frequent use in this forum of the self-serving argument that one cannot rely upon any information provided by the administration because they lie about everything. It's smug, and intellectually lazy.

It would be acceptable if there was reason to believe that the people who use this argument don't believe in the veracity of anyone who is highly motivated by political dynamics, but of course that's not the case.


There is more than ample reason to doubt the veracity of this administration's claims, particularly in certain areas and this is one of them. The legality/morality of the technique of waterboarding is not relevant to this veracity question except in one very important sense - there is significant legal opinion which holds that it is illegal and that the legal arguments forwarded by Cheney's legal team will not bear serious and full scrutiny, and that has serious legal consequences for, possibly, the President and certainly the VP's office staff and on down.

Bolstering that view is the fullscale impediments put up any serious review by congress or the courts by the VP's office and the Justice Department who have functioned in a junior status to Addington's team. You need to get familiar with Jack Goldsmith's accounts of all of this as he was working with Addington and Yoo and Andy Card and all the key players during this period.

Further, you now know about the destruction of hundreds of hours of tapes of interrogations, an act which was in clear defiance of court instructions. That this destruction of evidence was perpetrated for some other reason than covering peoples' asses isn't likely.

Further, you now have the situation where interrogations are done not by the american military or even by the CIA but by private contractors. At this point, the term "we" (meaning the government, military, State, CIA etc) excludes these private contractors.

It's possible Hayden is not lying or not using language to hide unpalatable facts or even criminal acts. But I don't grant him that pass. Full and thorough investigations are going to have to be done, if not now, later. When those are completed and my doubts are shown to be groundless, then I'll apologize to you. But I sure wouldn't put money on that outcome.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 08:00 pm
On Goldsmith, you can start here... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/interviews/goldsmith.html

On Addington, here http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20858
and here http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/03/060703fa_fact1
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 08:12 pm
blatham wrote:
finn wrote:
Quote:
blatham

I have previously addressed in detail my opinions on this subject. The Administration using the technique sparingly on high value targets possessed of information that had life and death significance, is in keeping with the manner in which I support waterboarding.

I appreciate that you, snood, cyclo and JTT wish to believe the tactic has been used indiscriminately and with great frequency, but sometime ago I reached the judgment that Michael Hayden is an honorable and truthful individual, and therefore I believe him when he reported it has been used three times and on the three individuals indicated.

I'm not sure why it matters whether or not Hayden is lying and I believe him given that your position seems to be that waterboarding is never acceptable. It can't be that if Hayden is telling the truth you might reconsider your position, can it?

I certainly don't mind your barbs, they're occassionally witty and help keep me sharp, but I have gotten quite tired of the frequent use in this forum of the self-serving argument that one cannot rely upon any information provided by the administration because they lie about everything. It's smug, and intellectually lazy.

It would be acceptable if there was reason to believe that the people who use this argument don't believe in the veracity of anyone who is highly motivated by political dynamics, but of course that's not the case.


There is more than ample reason to doubt the veracity of this administration's claims, particularly in certain areas and this is one of them. The legality/morality of the technique of waterboarding is not relevant to this veracity question except in one very important sense - there is significant legal opinion which holds that it is illegal and that the legal arguments forwarded by Cheney's legal team will not bear serious and full scrutiny, and that has serious legal consequences for, possibly, the President and certainly the VP's office staff and on down.

Bolstering that view is the fullscale impediments put up any serious review by congress or the courts by the VP's office and the Justice Department who have functioned in a junior status to Addington's team. You need to get familiar with Jack Goldsmith's accounts of all of this as he was working with Addington and Yoo and Andy Card and all the key players during this period.

Further, you now know about the destruction of hundreds of hours of tapes of interrogations, an act which was in clear defiance of court instructions. That this destruction of evidence was perpetrated for some other reason than covering peoples' asses isn't likely.

Further, you now have the situation where interrogations are done not by the american military or even by the CIA but by private contractors. At this point, the term "we" (meaning the government, military, State, CIA etc) excludes these private contractors.

It's possible Hayden is not lying or not using language to hide unpalatable facts or even criminal acts. But I don't grant him that pass. Full and thorough investigations are going to have to be done, if not now, later. When those are completed and my doubts are shown to be groundless, then I'll apologize to you. But I sure wouldn't put money on that outcome.


I have already stated my opinon. I see no point in engaging in a back and forth in which I say I believe Hayden and you tell me the reasons why you do not.

I still am not certain what difference it makes to you, in terms of the propriety of the technique, whether Hayden is telling the truth or not.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 08:19 pm
Whether Hayden is telling the truth or not sure matters.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Waterboarding
  3. » Page 24
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 02:31:04