Waterboard the Underwear Bomber?

[skycop 0]

Some limits need to be pushed due to the nature of the conflict, it's a
> fine line. I don't think anyone really knows where the line actually is.

Quote

You're missing the point, our enemies are not bound by the Geneva accords or the US Constitution. We are applying rules to a rule-less enemy, but that has limits. We are trying to figure out what those liimts should be, but at least we are applying limits, our enemies don't.

Contrary to popular belief, the war on terror is not really much like a 24 episode, and Jack Bauer is just a fictional character.

I don't need a lecture of TV vs real life, torture as a rule produces faulty intel. Pushing limits in relation to time sensitive intel has been effective.
If you keep AQ detainees guessing on exactly what limits are going to be pushed, that can be effective. Telegraphing your punches (not literally) is not effective.

And yes, I know where my "line" is and I've never crossed it.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>It is split right down the center with 10 votes each . . .

Yep. Ten people blinded by hate vs. ten people who want to get as much information out of the guy as possible. Let's hope the smarter group wins out.

No shit

I hate those who hate the US

Not sure what you're saying here.
Do you want actual information from the guy, or just want to torture him to satisfy your hatred?

I am agree with Bill that we should stop those who hate the US when they push this waterboarding is torture bull shit. Even Holder agrees it is not (even though he did not want to)

In the interests of ACCURACY (not that such would ever concern you) Holder stated it was not torture when applied to VOLUNTEERS.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>You're missing the point, our enemies are not bound by the Geneva
>accords or the US Constitution.

Neither was Timothy McVeigh. Neither are rapists or murderers. Yet the constitution seems to work for them as well.

The Constitution is really a pretty good document, overall. Too many people give up on it too easily when they are scared.

>torture as a rule produces faulty intel.

Good. So we agree that it's not only unconstitutional to torture people, it just plain doesn't work.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

>You're missing the point, our enemies are not bound by the Geneva
>accords or the US Constitution.

Neither was Timothy McVeigh. Neither are rapists or murderers. Yet the constitution seems to work for them as well.

The Constitution is really a pretty good document, overall. Too many people give up on it too easily when they are scared.

>torture as a rule produces faulty intel.

Good. So we agree that it's not only unconstitutional to torture people, it just plain doesn't work.

The underwear bomber isn't protected under our constitutional rights.


For the record, I voted no just because I don't believe it to be the best method of exploitation.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[billvon 2,400]

>The underwear bomber isn't protected under our constitutional rights.

Correct. He is only covered by the Constitution as it applies to him, just as it did to Timothy McVeigh. Ask McVeigh if he thinks that he was "protected" by the Constitution.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

>The underwear bomber isn't protected under our constitutional rights.

just as it did to Timothy McVeigh. Ask McVeigh if he thinks that he was "protected" by the Constitution.

Irrelevant. Constitutional rights don't apply to the underwear bomber regardless of McVeigh. Deciding to grant them is different than having it be a right.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

>The underwear bomber isn't protected under our constitutional rights.

just as it did to Timothy McVeigh. Ask McVeigh if he thinks that he was "protected" by the Constitution.

Irrelevant. Constitutional rights don't apply to the underwear bomber regardless of McVeigh. Deciding to grant them is different than having it be a right.

Why doesn't the Constitution apply?

Edited to add: suggest you read this:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3767431#3767431

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dmkellett 0]

I voted no. There was a time when I would have voted yes and in fact would have wanted to do far worse to him. but now I realise that the best thing to do would be to give him about 0.3 grams of pure MDMA.

He wouldnt be expecting it, and being a radical religious nutter he most certainly wouldn't have experimented with this sort of thing before, would have no idea what ws happening, have no defence against the love rush, and I predict would spill the beans in a big way!

all you would need is a tape recorder and someone to ask the questions!

D

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, acording to Holder, you are wrong

No.

Holder defined the 'intent'.

Then, he had to suck his own toe on his own definition.

So NO doesnt fit now does it

It fits like a fucking glove.

Holder was quite clear in saying that if the intent is to harm in order to get what you want from them then it is torture. The only reason that you are confused about this is that the R's asking the question went to great lengths to befuddle you with false definitions of torture.

There does not need to be permanent harm involved for it to be torture.

The intention does not does not have to be solely to cause harm with no other purpose.

If you actually knew what torture meant you wouldn't even be trying to argue this.

Holder walked into a trap he set. then he fumbled and back tracked and ignored questions that he now could not answer because it destroyed his position.

That is what happens when someone "feels" about a position as opposed to "thinking" about ones postion.

and then you have the peanuts to say "well, if someone actually knew what ........." yada yada yada



You started out behind and you are still there.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>It is split right down the center with 10 votes each . . .

Yep. Ten people blinded by hate vs. ten people who want to get as much information out of the guy as possible. Let's hope the smarter group wins out.

No shit

I hate those who hate the US

Not sure what you're saying here.
Do you want actual information from the guy, or just want to torture him to satisfy your hatred?

I am agree with Bill that we should stop those who hate the US when they push this waterboarding is torture bull shit. Even Holder agrees it is not (even though he did not want to)

In the interests of ACCURACY (not that such would ever concern you) Holder stated it was not torture when applied to VOLUNTEERS.

Yes he did. but then he went and stepped in it when he went the step further and injected "intent" into the debate. Which is also a key word in the US's definition of what torture is.

So, you are half right and then you mislead by omission

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Holder walked into a trap he set.

What is it, exactly, that you think he said about the status of waterboarding in that interview?

Quote

That is what happens when someone "feels" about a position as opposed to "thinking" about ones postion.

Exactly. You end up with a bunch of R's redefining words to justify what they feel about their postion. Hence all the false and irrelevent bull about permanent harm and intent being solely to hurt and not coerce.

Quote

and then you have the peanuts to say "well, if someone actually knew what ........."

Once more, the R's quoted and the author of the article are using definitions of torture that just don't exist. If you think that they actually have a point then you simply don't know what the word means.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Holder walked into a trap he set.

What is it, exactly, that you think he said about the status of waterboarding in that interview?

Quote

That is what happens when someone "feels" about a position as opposed to "thinking" about ones postion.

Exactly. You end up with a bunch of R's redefining words to justify what they feel about their postion. Hence all the false and irrelevent bull about permanent harm and intent being solely to hurt and not coerce.

Quote

and then you have the peanuts to say "well, if someone actually knew what ........."

Once more, the R's quoted and the author of the article are using definitions of torture that just don't exist. If you think that they actually have a point then you simply don't know what the word means.

And you are simply feelling again instead of thinking

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

And you are simply feelling again instead of thinking

Again: What is it, exactly, that you think he said about the status of waterboarding in that interview?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

And you are simply feelling again instead of thinking

Again: What is it, exactly, that you think he said about the status of waterboarding in that interview?

The status is they are not using it.

Even though it is not torture

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And you are simply feelling again instead of thinking

Again: What is it, exactly, that you think he said about the status of waterboarding in that interview?

The status is they are not using it.

Even though it is not torture

What exactly is it you think he said about waterboarding not being torture? What is it he said that means waterboarding terrorist suspects is not torture?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And you are simply feelling again instead of thinking

Again: What is it, exactly, that you think he said about the status of waterboarding in that interview?

The status is they are not using it.

Even though it is not torture

What exactly is it you think he said about waterboarding not being torture? What is it he said that means waterboarding terrorist suspects is not torture?

This is pointless. You feel what you want to or you can go read the transcripts or watch the youtube vid of his testimony.

But if you cant think then it will make no difference what he or anybody says

Me, I will continue to "think" abut things" You can "feel" what ever the hell makes you feel better about yourself

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

And you are simply feelling again instead of thinking

Rushmc, that is what we think YOU'RE doing. Feeling instead of thinking.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

And you are simply feelling again instead of thinking

Rushmc, that is what we think YOU'RE doing. Feeling instead of thinking.

Sorry you "feel" that way

If you would take the time to "think" about it,
you would see your error

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

This is pointless.

If you wont produce any argument except "He said so" then yes, it is pointless.

I have explained in detail why he did not say what you think he said. You have responded with nothing except to state that you are the one thinking about it, even though you are the one that hasn't produced any actual argument.

If you really have been thinking about it, you would find it very easy to answer my question. That you are instead going to great lengths to dodge the question speaks for itself.

Quote

Me, I will continue to "think" abut things"

Prove it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

This is pointless.

If you wont produce any argument except "He said so" then yes, it is pointless.

I have explained in detail why he did not say what you think he said. You have responded with nothing except to state that you are the one thinking about it, even though you are the one that hasn't produced any actual argument.

If you really have been thinking about it, you would find it very easy to answer my question. That you are instead going to great lengths to dodge the question speaks for itself.

Quote

Me, I will continue to "think" abut things"

Prove it.

Hell man, just tell yourself you won and feel good about it and yourself

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is pointless.

If you wont produce any argument except "He said so" then yes, it is pointless.

I have explained in detail why he did not say what you think he said. You have responded with nothing except to state that you are the one thinking about it, even though you are the one that hasn't produced any actual argument.

If you really have been thinking about it, you would find it very easy to answer my question. That you are instead going to great lengths to dodge the question speaks for itself.

Quote

Me, I will continue to "think" abut things"

Prove it.

Hell man, just tell yourself you won and feel good about it and yourself

I'd genuinely prefer it if you would put enough thought into your position to be able to reply to my question. I think it's unfortunate that you wont.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Skyrad 0]

I voted no. Interogare him ye, do so in great detail and leave no stone unturned in his head, do so professionally and skilfully. Waterboarding is simply vengence, personally I say supermax him.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I voted no. There was a time when I would have voted yes and in fact would have wanted to do far worse to him. but now I realise that the best thing to do would be to give him about 0.3 grams of pure MDMA.

He wouldnt be expecting it, and being a radical religious nutter he most certainly wouldn't have experimented with this sort of thing before, would have no idea what ws happening, have no defence against the love rush, and I predict would spill the beans in a big way!

all you would need is a tape recorder and someone to ask the questions!

D

He's an incompetent bumbler. I doubt he knows anything worth knowing. Clearly he was sent as a sacrificial lamb to cause more silly knee jerk security theater - in that AQ has succeeded spectacularly. AQ plays on our insecurities like a fiddle.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is pointless.

If you wont produce any argument except "He said so" then yes, it is pointless.

I have explained in detail why he did not say what you think he said. You have responded with nothing except to state that you are the one thinking about it, even though you are the one that hasn't produced any actual argument.

If you really have been thinking about it, you would find it very easy to answer my question. That you are instead going to great lengths to dodge the question speaks for itself.

Quote

Me, I will continue to "think" abut things"

Prove it.

Hell man, just tell yourself you won and feel good about it and yourself

I'd genuinely prefer it if you would put enough thought into your position to be able to reply to my question. I think it's unfortunate that you wont.

I have answered your questions. what is it you do not think I have answered?? The "prove it" question?

As for you "detail" Ya, you talk about Holders back tracking that makes no sense after he screwed himself with the truth. If you want to believe that then fine, your choice. I will take the truth however

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
>>As long as they're far away, do not have any influence on my mother country - who cares?

Sounds a little too, 'out-a-sight, out-a-mind' and a bit naive.
....

Oh yes, I know. That was my intention. Makes sure, everybody will understand

dudeist skydiver # 3105