Bin Laden is dead

[Bob Hubbard]

But if you support using national socialist medical experiments on living patient discoveries then you must support just doing medical experimentation in general to get even more knowledge, hence, that would make you just as guilty and bad. See how that works. It would help if people actually described what the C.I.A. did and what real torture looks like.

I don't support shooting monkeys into space, but that doesn't mean I want to erase NASA's R&D from the 50's and 60's.

 

[elder999]

Funny, the picture shows the kmer rouge doing an example of waterboarding, first, when was the drawing made and by who .

Painting by former prison inmate Vann Nath at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum

 

[elder999]

I would not water board U.S. Citizens or foreign nationals.

Hmm. Wouldn't you waterboard this guy?

He is an Islamic lecturer, spiritual leader, and former imam who has inspired Islamic terrorists against the West. According to U.S. officials, he is a senior talent recruiter and motivator, who has also become “operational” as a planner and trainer, "for al-Qaeda and all of its franchises".[3][7][10][11][12][13] The U.S. Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence warned that al-Awlaki "is extraordinarily dangerous, committed to carrying out deadly attacks on Americans and others worldwide".[6] With a blog, a Facebook page, and many YouTube videos, he has been described as the "bin Laden of the Internet".[14][15]
Al-Awlaki's sermons were attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers. He reportedly met privately with two of them in San Diego. Investigators suspect al-Awlaki may have known about the 9/11 attacks in advance.[16] In 2009, he was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.[4][17]

 

[billc]

Sure, he is a U.S. citizen making war on the united states. If he is captured and they know he has info. waterboard him. His citzenship shouldn't protect him if he goes overseas to fight against this country. He is an unlawful combatant, so he is fair game.

 

[elder999]

Sure, he is a U.S. citizen making war on the united states. If he is captured and they know he has info. waterboard him. His citzenship shouldn't protect him if he goes overseas to fight against this country. He is an unlawful combatant, so he is fair game.

"Sure?" How remarkably glib for someone sitting at their computer. I'm done.

 

[shesulsa]

But ... it's illegal.

 

[shesulsa]

Wow. SOOOOO cavalier.

 

[billc]

Yeah, this is the guy I would waterboard:

from the article above:

bdulmutallab told the FBI that al-Awlaki was one of his al-Qaeda trainers in remote camps in Yemen. And there were confirming "informed reports" that Abdulmutallab met with al-Awlaki during his final weeks of training and indoctrination prior to the attack.[166][167] The L.A. Times reported that according to a U.S. intelligence official, intercepts and other information point to connections between the two:

Some of the information ... comes from Abdulmutallab, who ... said that he met with al-Awlaki and senior al-Qaeda members during an extended trip to Yemen this year, and that the cleric was involved in some elements of planning or preparing the attack and in providing religious justification for it. Other intelligence linking the two became apparent after the attempted bombing, including communications intercepted by the National Security Agency indicating that the cleric was meeting with "a Nigerian" in preparation for some kind of operation.[24]

 

[billc]

According to the way some people post, because you support Nasa research you believe in torturing animals.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I would not water board U.S. Citizens or foreign nationals.

Except:

Sure, he is a U.S. citizen making war on the united states. If he is captured and they know he has info. waterboard him. His citzenship shouldn't protect him if he goes overseas to fight against this country. He is an unlawful combatant, so he is fair game.

So, won't waterboard a US Citizen, except when you will.

Gotcha.

Oh, a US Citizen who fights against the US is still a citizen.
He's not a "unlawful combatant".

He would be most likely defined as a Rebel.
"A person who rises in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or ruler"
Or possible a traitor, "A person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc"

Then there is this from that "God Damned Piece of Paper" so dismissed by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.

U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3


Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[shesulsa]

According to the way some people post, because you support Nasa research you believe in torturing animals.

You know, I took you off ignore because this topic was important. I've read your comments and Bob Hubbard's responses and I am convinced now more than ever that you seriously just type ****.

You don't read other people's posts. It's not even a discussion with you, you're talking AT us.

Totally. Not. Worth. My. Time.

Buh-bye. Again.

 

[billc]

An unlawful enemy combatant trumps citizenship. If he is fighting with the terrorists against us, in a foreign country he is fair game. If he was caught here in the states, he would be protected by the constitution for the most part. Yeah, you got me. Let's pick some more nits shall we.

 

[billc]

I'll clarify the foreign national part as well. If a british citizen commits a crime under the U.S. criminal code here in the states, I would not waterboard him. If he commits an act of terrorism in the continental U.S. I would not water board him. If he is fighting overseas as an unlawful enemy combatant, I would waterboard him, if he is determined by the C.I.A. and the intelligence community to need to be waterboarded.

Oh, if you want to call that other guy a traitor, I'll go with that. Then we can execute him after we put him through a military tribunal, if he is found guilty.

 

[billc]

You know, its the "unlawful enemy combatant, fighting overseas," that is really the determinant in my water boarding list. It should be fairly obvious, if it isn't I hope that clarifies my position even more.

 

[Tez3]

Luckyboxer, they don't want to understand how the C.I.A. actually used waterboarding to get the information. They call it torture as if it has anything in common with pincers, and pliers and batteries connected to sensitive parts of the anatomy. It is not even close. If they would read "Courting Disaster," or the book "Master Mind," they would understand the process of information gathering that was used. They waterboarded KSM three times. He broke, and decided that he had had enough. He then went on to conduct lectures for intelligence analysts on the al queda network, their leadership, their financing, how they moved people around the world, he told them everything. Before he was waterboarded he didn't tell them anything. He was also ready for the water boarding through his terrorist training. When they were pouring the water on him, he knew exactly how long they could pour the water and would show them he was counting the seconds on his fingers.

I was listening to Dennis Miller today at work. He made the point that if you knew one of these jerks had knowledge of a bomb attack, and you didn't waterboard him, that would be the immoral act. To let innocent people die, when a non-lethal, safe, and mild form of coercian will get the information you need would be wrong.

The people on the other side of the argument throw out the word torture in order to silence the argument. Torture brings to mind intense pain, long term damage, and physical injury, and is nothing like the water boarding the C.I.A. used. Oliver North was on the radio show I listen to in the morning, Don And Roma out of chicago, he said he has been waterboarded 3 times, and when he was an instructor at S.E.R.E. he waterboarded trainees. He has no problem with using it. Of course a british writer, an older british writer, and a shock jock know more than a S.E.R.E instructor.

Do you want to write that again but just a bit more patronising?
I'm sorry I just have to laugh otherwise I think I'd probably cry at your naivety. You of course have personal experience of nearly forty years dealing with terrorists suspects, have a huge amount of experience in interrogation techniques both 'soft' and 'hard' so can say for sure that this torture is the best way to make someone tell you the truth. Again taking out the moral aspects you really do believe don't you that waterboarding is a useful way to collect intel, dear me, it must be so your media darlings are telling you that it is.

If I knew someone had vital infomation and I could save thousands of lives I still wouldn't waterboard them because I know, yes, know that it isn't the fastest or the most efficient way of gaining that information, it's crude and done more for the enjoyment of those watching or for revenge. There's faster more reliable ways to make someone talk and make sure it's reliable information, ways certainly that would be classed as immoral but as I said taking the moral aspect out of it waterboarding is still not a useful tool in an interrogator's box.

 

[Tez3]

I'll clarify the foreign national part as well. If a british citizen commits a crime under the U.S. criminal code here in the states, I would not waterboard him. If he commits an act of terrorism in the continental U.S. I would not water board him. If he is fighting overseas as an unlawful enemy combatant, I would waterboard him, if he is determined by the C.I.A. and the intelligence community to need to be waterboarded.

Oh, if you want to call that other guy a traitor, I'll go with that. Then we can execute him after we put him through a military tribunal, if he is found guilty.

You have British detainees in Gitmo, I can even give you their names and they are being abused ands tortured.

All the names of the detainees have been put on Wikileaks btw along with more secret filesfrom Gitmo.
http://www.wikileaks.ch/gitmo/

 

[Bob Hubbard]

See, secret interrogation places are Goodthink if done by the US. Badthink if done bay -anyone else-.
Like having nukes. Only the people we like are supposed to have them, because everyone else are bad.
But don't worry, they must be guilty as the US doesn't make mistakes and accidentally do things like say, kidnap a Canadian ship him to our Syrian buddies who spend some 'quality enhanced interrogation time' with him before releasing him months later with out explanation or apology. Nope. Never happened.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You have British detainees in Gitmo, I can even give you their names and they are being abused ands tortured.

All the names of the detainees have been put on Wikileaks btw along with more secret filesfrom Gitmo.
http://www.wikileaks.ch/gitmo/

But see, they weren't fighting under a British flag, so that makes them 'unlawful'.
Because of course 'mercenary' doesn't apply.

See

With the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan some lawyers in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and in the office of White House counsel Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush that he did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in handling detainees in the War on Terrorism. This applied not only to members of al Qa'ida but the entire Taliban, because, they argued, Afghanistan was a "failed state.

So, in order to get around the various GC's all you have to do is have a lawyer declare your country a 'failed state' and bam! instant excuse to torture at whim.

 

[Tez3]

But see, they weren't fighting under a British flag, so that makes them 'unlawful'.
Because of course 'mercenary' doesn't apply.

See


So, in order to get around the various GC's all you have to do is have a lawyer declare your country a 'failed state' and bam! instant excuse to torture at whim.

That's if they were fighting, some just went back to Pakistan to visit families, go to funerals, get married etc. It's common here for Asians to go back to marry,it causes an immigration issue but isn't illegal. We have a lot of first generation immigrants whose families are still in their country of origin so naturally they go back and forward on visits.
That's not to say there aren't potential and real terrorists out there but the chances of you finding them in poor countries when you offer a bounty is very slight. What you get is poor people dobbing neighbours etc in that they have had disagreements with, don't like or are jealous of. Informers get rich by their terms and we end up with innocent victims who we have to say are terrorists to save face. Hardly satisfactory or good security.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

But when you need to keep fear in the public eye and justify huge payouts to companies owned by friends of yours for things like 'rebuilding' and 'reconstruction', that's hard to do without every so often announcing you've captured 'another' terrorist.

Of course, the US would never do such a thing.
Mistake an innocent for a terrorist, or make an arrest just to snag some headline space.

Because of course the US and international intelligence community has a terrific track record on gathering accurate, reliable and current intel. That's why they found those WMD in Iraq, and saved those Buddha's in Afghanistan.