Okay here’s what I don’t get… The us starts half of its wars without a good reason, making the country evil, and yet instead of doing the smart thing and dropping a bomb or two on a neighbourhood (like evil countries are supposed to) they put their soldiers and dignitaries into increasingly dangerous situations. And then they train their soldiers in techniques designed to suppress an enemy instead of destroying them!
Either be ruthless or be moral, mixing these qualities in a war in just dumb as fuck. Actually, any show of morality beyond the basic “no looting or raping” is dumb as fuck.
[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Okay here’s what I don’t get… The us starts half of its wars without a good reason, making the country evil, and yet instead of doing the smart thing and dropping a bomb or two on a neighbourhood (like evil countries are supposed to) they put their soldiers and dignitaries into increasingly dangerous situations. And then they train their soldiers in techniques designed to suppress an enemy instead of destroying them!
Either be ruthless or be moral, mixing these qualities in a war in just dumb as fuck. Actually, any show of morality beyond the basic “no looting or raping” is dumb as fuck.[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ex-GITMO detainee ‘involved in Libya attack’
Shit I just hope someone didn’t pour any water on that guy’s face when he was in that hellhole. That’s the main thing.[/quote]
By every account I have ever read, you are flippantly understating the nature of waterboarding.[/quote]
Very true waterboarding (to my knowledge) is a very torturous act. The subject feels as if he is drowning and there is nothing that he can do about it. It is a very aggressive means to get information from our enemies. Unfortunately, I don’t really know enough about it to say if it is warranted or not. I do know that 3000 Americans died in an unprovoked attack on our shores. But I will leave the experts to decide if enemy combatants deserve such treatment.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ex-GITMO detainee ‘involved in Libya attack’
Shit I just hope someone didn’t pour any water on that guy’s face when he was in that hellhole. That’s the main thing.[/quote]
By every account I have ever read, you are flippantly understating the nature of waterboarding.[/quote]
I’m not understating it. I’m well aware it is in effect drowning. My point was that I’m more concerned about al Qaeda terrorists being released back into the world than I am about whether they were subjected to waterboarding whilst in custody.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ex-GITMO detainee ‘involved in Libya attack’
Shit I just hope someone didn’t pour any water on that guy’s face when he was in that hellhole. That’s the main thing.[/quote]
By every account I have ever read, you are flippantly understating the nature of waterboarding.[/quote]
Very true waterboarding (to my knowledge) is a very torturous act. The subject feels as if he is drowning and there is nothing that he can do about it. It is a very aggressive means to get information from our enemies. Unfortunately, I don’t really know enough about it to say if it is warranted or not. I do know that 3000 Americans died in an unprovoked attack on our shores. But I will leave the experts to decide if enemy combatants deserve such treatment.[/quote]
If anyone is interested, here’s a good read addressing torture as a technique of intelligence gathering.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ex-GITMO detainee ‘involved in Libya attack’
Shit I just hope someone didn’t pour any water on that guy’s face when he was in that hellhole. That’s the main thing.[/quote]
By every account I have ever read, you are flippantly understating the nature of waterboarding.[/quote]
I’m not understating it. I’m well aware it is in effect drowning. My point was that I’m more concerned about al Qaeda terrorists being released back into the world than I am about whether they were subjected to waterboarding whilst in custody.[/quote]
By your own admission, it is simulated drowning. I’d say your original choice of words understated that.
With regard to your point, though, I don’t disagree.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ex-GITMO detainee ‘involved in Libya attack’
Shit I just hope someone didn’t pour any water on that guy’s face when he was in that hellhole. That’s the main thing.[/quote]
By every account I have ever read, you are flippantly understating the nature of waterboarding.[/quote]
Very true waterboarding (to my knowledge) is a very torturous act. The subject feels as if he is drowning and there is nothing that he can do about it. It is a very aggressive means to get information from our enemies. Unfortunately, I don’t really know enough about it to say if it is warranted or not. I do know that 3000 Americans died in an unprovoked attack on our shores. But I will leave the experts to decide if enemy combatants deserve such treatment.[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ex-GITMO detainee ‘involved in Libya attack’
Shit I just hope someone didn’t pour any water on that guy’s face when he was in that hellhole. That’s the main thing.[/quote]
By every account I have ever read, you are flippantly understating the nature of waterboarding.[/quote]
I’m not understating it. I’m well aware it is in effect drowning. My point was that I’m more concerned about al Qaeda terrorists being released back into the world than I am about whether they were subjected to waterboarding whilst in custody.[/quote]
What you are trying to say is that you dont give a fuck whether 9 innocent men are tortured if one of them might be a terrorist.
Take this far enough and one day you will be one of them.
And someone like you will sneer why you were released and went on to bomb the bastards who damaged your soul beyond repair.
What you are trying to say is that you dont give a fuck whether 9 innocent men are tortured if one of them might be a terrorist.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I have no reason to believe that there were any ‘innocent men’ waterboarded at GITMO. The only men waterboarded that I am aware of are KSM, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah.
On 5 November 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that its “sources confirm… that the CIA has only used this interrogation method against three terrorist detainees and not since 2003.”
Additionally, the legal maxim ‘better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man suffer’ is only relevant within the legal system of the civil society. It’s not applicable to dealing with enemy combatants during war.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ex-GITMO detainee ‘involved in Libya attack’
Shit I just hope someone didn’t pour any water on that guy’s face when he was in that hellhole. That’s the main thing.[/quote]
By every account I have ever read, you are flippantly understating the nature of waterboarding.[/quote]
I’m not understating it. I’m well aware it is in effect drowning. My point was that I’m more concerned about al Qaeda terrorists being released back into the world than I am about whether they were subjected to waterboarding whilst in custody.[/quote]
What you are trying to say is that you dont give a fuck whether 9 innocent men are tortured if one of them might be a terrorist.
Take this far enough and one day you will be one of them.
And someone like you will sneer why you were released and went on to bomb the bastards who damaged your soul beyond repair. [/quote]
I seriously doubt that he will be one of them, which means your’e engaging in hyperbole.[/quote]
That depends on how much spine he really has.
Assuming that he has any might be hyperbole?
Alas, any kind of spine and it is only a matter of time.
Because that shit does not stop when you want it to.
What you are trying to say is that you dont give a fuck whether 9 innocent men are tortured if one of them might be a terrorist.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I have no reason to believe that there were any ‘innocent men’ waterboarded at GITMO. The only men waterboarded that I am aware of are KSM, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah.
On 5 November 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that its “sources confirm… that the CIA has only used this interrogation method against three terrorist detainees and not since 2003.”
Additionally, the legal maxim ‘better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man suffer’ is only relevant within the legal system of the civil society. It’s not applicable to dealing with enemy combatants during war.[/quote]
You have every reason to believe that they had nothing against the vast majority imprisoned.
Also, an “enemy combatant” is a fiction that just so happens to fall between the cracks between a “prisoner” and a “prisoner of war”.
You have every reason to believe that they had nothing against the vast majority imprisoned.
[/quote]
What? Don’t know what you’re talking about as usual.
Actually, no. That’s just a load of crap that you just made up. Most prisoners of war are “enemy combatants.”
“Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.” - Supreme Court decision Ex Parte Quirin
You have every reason to believe that they had nothing against the vast majority imprisoned.
[/quote]
What? Don’t know what you’re talking about as usual.
Actually, no. That’s just a load of crap that you just made up. Most prisoners of war are “enemy combatants.”
“Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.” - Supreme Court decision Ex Parte Quirin
Haven’t we already been through this ad nauseum?[/quote]
Yes we have and this is why we know that someone who is of an undetermined status has a right to a trial, and not a kangaroo court either, to determine his status.
Pesky, pesky laws, trying to prevent governments from torturing people.
Its a shame, really, but here we are.
By the way, if they are enemy soldiers out of uniform you are allowed to execute them.