WWII interrogators speak out against "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture)

[PixelPusher]

Fort Hunt's Quiet Men break silence on WWII (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html?sub=new)
Interrogators Fought 'Battle of Wits'

By Petula Dvorak
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 6, 2007; Page A01

For six decades, they held their silence.

The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.

When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.

Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies held beside the Potomac River near Alexandria. Across the river, President Bush defended his administration's methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects during an Oval Office appearance.

Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

"I feel like the military is using us to say, 'We did spooky stuff then, so it's okay to do it now,' " said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University.

When Peter Weiss, 82, went up to receive his award, he commandeered the microphone and gave his piece.

"I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war," said Weiss, chairman of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy and a human rights and trademark lawyer in New York City.

The veterans of P.O. Box 1142, a top-secret installation in Fairfax County that went only by its postal code name, were brought back to Fort Hunt by park rangers who are piecing together a portrait of what happened there during the war.

Nearly 4,000 prisoners of war, most of them German scientists and submariners, were brought in for questioning for days, even weeks, before their presence was reported to the Red Cross, a process that did not comply with the Geneva Conventions. Many of the interrogators were refugees from the Third Reich.

"We did it with a certain amount of respect and justice," said John Gunther Dean, 81, who became a career Foreign Service officer and ambassador to Denmark.

The interrogators had standards that remain a source of pride and honor.

"During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."

Exactly what went on behind the barbed-wire fences of Fort Hunt has been a mystery that has lured amateur historians and curious neighbors for decades.

During the war, nearby residents watched buses with darkened windows roar toward the fort day and night. They couldn't have imagined that groundbreaking secrets in rocketry, microwave technology and submarine tactics were being peeled apart right on the grounds that are now a popular picnic area where moonbounces mushroom every weekend.

When Vincent Santucci arrived at the National Park Service's George Washington Memorial Parkway office as chief ranger four years ago, he asked his cultural resource specialist, Brandon Bies, to do some research so they could post signs throughout the park, explaining its history and giving it a bit more dignity.

That assignment changed dramatically when ranger Dana Dierkes was leading a tour of the park one day and someone told her about a rumored Fort Hunt veteran.

It was Fred Michel, who worked in engineering in Alexandria for 65 years, never telling his neighbors that he once faced off with prisoners and pried wartime secrets from them.

Michel directed them to other vets, and they remembered others.

Bies went from being a ranger researching mountains of topics in stacks of papers to flying across the country, camera and klieg lights in tow, to document the fading memories of veterans.

He, Santucci and others have spent hours trying to sharpen the focus of gauzy memories, coaxing complex details from men who swore on their generation's honor to never speak of the work they did at P.O. Box 1142.

"The National Park Service is committed to telling your story, and now it belongs to the nation," said David Vela, superintendent of the George Washington Memorial Parkway.

There is a deadline. Each day, about 1,100 World War II veterans die, said Jean Davis, spokeswoman for the U.S. Army's Freedom Team Salute program, which recognizes veterans and the parents, spouses and employers who provide support for active-duty soldiers.

By gathering at Fort Hunt yesterday, the quiet men could be saluted for the work they did so long ago.
The Bush water carriers are welcome to heap their disingenuous scorn upon these guys (unpatriotic, traitors, appeasers, cowards, etc.).

[clambake]

The Bush water carriers are welcome to heap their disingenuous scorn upon these guys (unpatriotic, traitors, appeasers, cowards, etc.).

ok, I hope they die from bad kharma, they're probably gay, if they touch me I'll kill them.

[Nbadan]

"During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."

Money quote.....what is victory if we have lowered ourselves to the level of our enemy and along the way, made a new enemy....

[Wild Cobra]

Why is this article relavent? We know, from the past that torture is not a way to get intelligence, and we don't torture.

[ChumpDumper]

"We" don't tell us what we do.

[Oh, Gee!!]

we don't torture.

say enough times and maybe you'll actually believe it.

[Wild Cobra]

say enough times and maybe you'll actually believe it.
Give me an example of when we did.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Abu Ghraib

[Wild Cobra]

Abu Ghraib
OK, what did we do to torture them? I saw some disturbing things about that, but you have to redefine what torture is to claim that as torture. It was not torture!

What did we specifically do that constitutes torture?

[Oh, Gee!!]

beatings, rape, sodomy, being urinated on, and humiliated don't qualify? If so, then I guess there was no torture. Are you daft?

[Wild Cobra]

beatings, rape, sodomy, being urinated on, and humiliated don't qualify? If so, then I guess there was no torture. Are you daft?
Not all those things occured first of all. Besides, they don't qualify as torture:

1. Certain, clearly defined acts perpetrated against helpless prisoners, to force them to suffer excruciating pain and discomfort.

2. Cruel and outrageous acts that terrorize helpless prisoners to force or coerce them to react in a way that satisfies the torturer.

3. Any act committed by an official of a government against a prisoner of war which could cause undue pain, as clearly defined by many international agreements.

4. (mainly literary) The "suffering of the heart" imposed by one on another, as in personal relationships.

Now nobody approves of the actions by the soldiers of Abu Graib either, and those involved were punished!

[Oh, Gee!!]

sodomy by batton is not cruel and outrageous? that act doesn't terrorize, nor does it cause excruciating and undue pain?

[Wild Cobra]

sodomy by batton is not cruel and outrageous? that act doesn't terrorize, nor does it cause excruciating and undue pain?
Well, I never heard of that happening from any reliable source.

Source?

Then again, even if it did happen, it was not sanctioned. It was done by individuals who overstepped their authority.

[clambake]

Well, I never heard of that happening from any reliable source.

Source?

Then again, even if it did happen, it was not sanctioned. It was done by individuals who overstepped their authority.
so you admit it......good

[ChumpDumper]

I keep pimping "Fresh Air" on this board, but they have had some pretty timely guests. Today they had a panel including Stuart Herrington, who was an army intel officer during the Vietnam War. He inspected the conditions and techniques used in Iraq and Gitmo and explains where they went wrong, including a claim that young interrogators and others higher up have been influenced by shows like 24 in their attitudes towards their subjects.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15148243

Audio available tonight.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, I never heard of that happening from any reliable source.

in other words Rush and Hannity deny it, so I will to.


Source?

are you kidding me? this has been covered ad nauseam by countless news organizations, under oath, in legislative investigations, etc.


Then again, even if it did happen, it was not sanctioned. It was done by individuals who overstepped their authority.

It was also done by contractors paid for with your tax money, with no supervison, and no accountabilty to any laws. If it wasn't sanctioned, then a blind eye was turned to the fact that torture and prisoner abuse was happening at the hands of Americans.

[Wild Cobra]

so you admit it......good
No I don't. "WE" as a nation do not torture. If individuals do, they are not doing it as part of the precribed rules, and they are criminals.

[clambake]

in this case, "WE" represents us. period

[Wild Cobra]

i
are you kidding me? this has been covered ad nauseam by countless news organizations, under oath, in legislative investigations, etc.

No, you are wrong. News organizations covered all kinds of unfounded allegations, and the things that occurred at Abu Grab that I know of were not torture.

Allegations and proof are two different things. Especially when such things are commonly lied about, like the lefts favorite phony soldier lied! He talked of torture that he could not have witnessed. Is he your expert witness?

[Wild Cobra]

in this case, "WE" represents us. period

We can disagree on that finer point.

Still, I need proof. Give me a verifiable source that torture was committed.

[clambake]

go to google dipshit. then you can punish rumsfeld and bush for apologizing

[ChumpDumper]

6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

1. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees;
jumping on their naked feet;

2. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and
female detainees;

3. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various
sexually explicit positions for photographing;

4. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and
keeping them naked for several days at a time;

5. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's
underwear;

6. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate
themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

7. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and
then jumping on them;

8. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box,
with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his
sfingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

9. (S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a
detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old
fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

10. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked
detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a
picture;

11. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female
detainee;

12. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles)
to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least
one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

13. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
(ANNEXES 26 and 26)

....

8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):

1. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the
phosphoric liquid on detainees;

2. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

3. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

4. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a
chair;

5. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

6. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the
wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed
against the wall in his cell;

7. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and
perhaps a broom stick.

8. h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and
intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one
instance actually biting a detainee.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html#ThR1.9

Just to clear things up.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Still, I need proof. Give me a verifiable source that torture was committed.

no, you're not asking for either. you're asking us to do the impossible: convince you of the truth of these allegation when you're already convinced that they are not true.

[Wild Cobra]

no, you're not asking for either. you're asking us to do the impossible: convince you of the truth of these allegation when you're already convinced that they are not true.
No, show me a reputable source that confirms such actions, and I will change my mind.

You are stuck on the notion that I am inflexible. I simply do not believe the propaganda.

I believe I am asking for the impossible because I believe it doesn't exist!

Dare to prove me wrong? Afterall, I'm not perfect. I do make mistakes.

[clambake]

why did rumsfeld and bush apologize?

[Wild Cobra]

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html#ThR1.9

Just to clear things up.
Fine, definate illegal actions took place and I don't deny that. Those actions still don't fit the definition of torture.

Ask McCain what torture is. He knows from experience!

[Wild Cobra]

why did rumsfeld and bush apologize?
Place it in the proper context and I can tell you.

I'm not a mind reader.

You going to continue to avoid my question?

What torture did we do?

[ChumpDumper]

Fine, definate illegal actions took place and I don't deny that. Those actions still don't fit the definition of torture.You are so completely in denial about this it's laughable. Those actions listed fit the criteria you listed.

[clambake]

Fine, definate illegal actions took place and I don't deny that. Those actions still don't fit the definition of torture.

Ask McCain what torture is. He knows from experience!
McCain: I Had It Easy
Washington, D.C. : 2005-02-08
This week this military passed down more sentences to guards from Abu Gharib in conjunction with the humiliation and abuse of prisoners. The public outcry came after photos and video leaked to the press early last year. Since then, Abu Gharib has been the most covered item in the news.


Customize btf




And that's remarkable considering it was an election year, we're still at war, Iraq held elections and Oprah announced her retirement in 6 years.

Even as the military passes judgment on its own, the Senate is also prepared to open hearings into exactly how these abuses were allowed to happen.

Perhaps the most damning voice in the discussion is John McCain. McCain is certainly one of the few voices in the public debate with any first hand knowledge into the issue. McCain was held in the Hanoi Hilton, a North Vietnamese Prisoner of War Camp, for quite some time after his capture.

In an exclusive interview with btf Industries, McCain discussed his ordeal and his reaction to the Abu Gharib photos.

“Let me just be straight forward with you,” lisped a lop-sided McCain, “compared to Abu Gharib, I had it easy.”

Long known as cruel captors, it seems unlikely that the Communist North Vietnamese would be less vicious than America 's finest, but McCain insisted.

“Sure, I was beaten and starved. Sure, I saw my friends executed and beaten to death. Sure, I felt like I would never survive my ordeal. But I never, never, had to watch female soldiers parade around in their underwear. I was never, never, forced to watch sexual intercourse between two consenting adults. My captors violated many of the rules of war, but they never stacked American prisoners in a pyramid or made us simulate sexual acts.”

As McCain recalled the sadness of seeing his comrades killed in Vietnam he was visibly saddened. But when discussed the horrors and abuses at Abu Gharib he was overcome by a sort of righteous anger.

He continued, “Even the terrorists have more respect for human dignity than our troops. When they capture someone, you don't see them humiliate them. Sure, they cut off heads with dull knives, assassinate civilians and hide behind women and children, but they have yet to sink to the level of mocking their prisoners.”

While McCain may be the only voice with personal experience, he's not alone in his views. The senate appears poised to deal harshly in its oversight of American military affairs

But whatever the senate resolves to do, nothing will be more effective than the words of one of America 's last great heroes.

“My time in Vietnam was hell. But I would rather be in the hands of the Vietnamese than America 's sexual deviants any day of the week. I may not survive, but at least no one would see me naked.”

[Wild Cobra]

You are so completely in denial about this it's laughable. Those actions listed fit the criteria you listed.
Hardly.

[clambake]

McCain: I Had It Easy
Washington, D.C. : 2005-02-08
This week this military passed down more sentences to guards from Abu Gharib in conjunction with the humiliation and abuse of prisoners. The public outcry came after photos and video leaked to the press early last year. Since then, Abu Gharib has been the most covered item in the news.


Customize btf




And that's remarkable considering it was an election year, we're still at war, Iraq held elections and Oprah announced her retirement in 6 years.

Even as the military passes judgment on its own, the Senate is also prepared to open hearings into exactly how these abuses were allowed to happen.

Perhaps the most damning voice in the discussion is John McCain. McCain is certainly one of the few voices in the public debate with any first hand knowledge into the issue. McCain was held in the Hanoi Hilton, a North Vietnamese Prisoner of War Camp, for quite some time after his capture.

In an exclusive interview with btf Industries, McCain discussed his ordeal and his reaction to the Abu Gharib photos.

“Let me just be straight forward with you,” lisped a lop-sided McCain, “compared to Abu Gharib, I had it easy.”

Long known as cruel captors, it seems unlikely that the Communist North Vietnamese would be less vicious than America 's finest, but McCain insisted.

“Sure, I was beaten and starved. Sure, I saw my friends executed and beaten to death. Sure, I felt like I would never survive my ordeal. But I never, never, had to watch female soldiers parade around in their underwear. I was never, never, forced to watch sexual intercourse between two consenting adults. My captors violated many of the rules of war, but they never stacked American prisoners in a pyramid or made us simulate sexual acts.”

As McCain recalled the sadness of seeing his comrades killed in Vietnam he was visibly saddened. But when discussed the horrors and abuses at Abu Gharib he was overcome by a sort of righteous anger.

He continued, “Even the terrorists have more respect for human dignity than our troops. When they capture someone, you don't see them humiliate them. Sure, they cut off heads with dull knives, assassinate civilians and hide behind women and children, but they have yet to sink to the level of mocking their prisoners.”

While McCain may be the only voice with personal experience, he's not alone in his views. The senate appears poised to deal harshly in its oversight of American military affairs

But whatever the senate resolves to do, nothing will be more effective than the words of one of America 's last great heroes.

“My time in Vietnam was hell. But I would rather be in the hands of the Vietnamese than America 's sexual deviants any day of the week. I may not survive, but at least no one would see me naked.”


Come on, that's funny!!

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, show me a reputable source that confirms such actions, and I will change my mind.

What is a reputable source? The ones making the allegations are by and large Iraqi civilians and a small handful of ex-military personnel. Are those reputable sources to you? You can read what those people have to say online in the numerous news articles I alluded to earlier (they are not hard to find if you've ever heard of Google.com). But something tells me that you'll either not trust the people making the allegations, or question whether the actions were torture or just a few bad apples breaking the law.

[ChumpDumper]

Hardly.Of course they do. You made the mistake of defining torture. And now you can't accept that it happened.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Of course they do. You made the mistake of defining torture. And now you can't accept that it happened.

puring acid on flesh qualifies as torture?

[ChumpDumper]

That's a fraternity prank.

[Wild Cobra]

McCain: I Had It Easy
Washington, D.C. : 2005-02-08

OK, If you believe BTF Industries...

I suppose you believe these stories from BTF Industries too:

John Kerry Claims He Endorsed Bush (http://www.btfindustries.com/display.php?included=includes/display/newsroom&id=4&theme=camo):


However, about 7 minutes into Kerry's speech, Kerry shocked supporters and eager reporters by announcing his endorsement of George W Bush for President.
“I've said all along,” Kerry droned, “that George W. Bush would be the next president of the United State of America . My position has never wavered. When I went into the voting booth yesterday, I pulled a lever for Bush.”



Dan Rather Arrested in Brawl (http://www.btfindustries.com/display.php?included=includes/display/newsroom&id=3&theme=camo)


In a small town along the Canada-US border, Dan Rather sits in an 8 x 8 cell. This once proud figure in American media and culture seems to have hit “rock-bottom”, a term he claims to have coined, along with, “What's good for the goose is good for the gander” and “I know you are, but what am I?”

Customize btf
According to a local police spokesman, Rather was arrested in a local tavern and has been charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault and disturbing the peace. In a prepared statement, Lt. Jack Jennings recounted the arrest. “The suspect, Mr. Rather, was seen sitting at the bar downing shots of gin and muttering under his breath about some vast right wing conspiracy and how the Fresh Prince of Bel Air is getting better ratings in New York City that his nightly newscast. When another patron approached Mr. Rather to make sure he was OK, Mr. Rather grabbed a chair, screamed ‘I'll disenfranchise you' and crushed it over the man's head. A brawl ensued. Right now we're investigating Mr. Rather's claim that the man he assaulted had in his possession proof that George W. Bush went AWOL during his term with the Air National Guard.”



Government to Blame All Deaths on Smoking (http://www.btfindustries.com/display.php?included=includes/display/newsroom&id=19&theme=camo)


Put down that cigarette, kids, it might just kill you.

Customize btf
Today in the nation's capital, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson announced that in an effort to discourage teens from smoking the US Government would begin listing smoking or tobacco related illness as the cause for all deaths in America .

“It's time to do something drastic,” Thompson said in a prepared statement announcing the new Initiative, “Each day more children and teens begin smoking. Our warnings aren't being heard. Instead, children and teens are following the examples of their parents, or copying habits they've seen on television and in the movies. So, for the first time, the Department of Health and Human Services, with the approval of President Bush, will definitively say that smoking or tobacco related illness will kill every American... because it's going to be the stated cause of death for every American that dies beginning January 1, 2006.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll take "Missing the Point" for 500, Alex.

[Wild Cobra]

puring acid on flesh qualifies as torture?
There's fear and pain, and then there's excruciating pain and terror!

Different standards!

Well, I guess maybe pussies think otherwise...

[ChumpDumper]

Internets tough guy!

You pour acid on your skin every day to exfoliate, but not really because exfoliation is gay.

[Spurminator]

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

I don't care what anyone says, I love this forum.

[Wild Cobra]

Internets tough guy!

You pour acid on your skin to exfoliate, but not really because exfoliation is gay.
The acid from a light stick is pretty weak stuff anyway, probably irritating at best. I've have had 13.5 PH KOH (potassium hydroxide) on me several times. That stuff flat out eats the skin! Hurts like hell if you don't rinse it off fast. Interesting stuff. It feels real slippery, but its not. It is the skin dissolving!

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

I don't care what anyone says, I love this forum.
OK, I'll bite...

Who are you laughing at?

[ChumpDumper]

So what have you had shoved up your asshole?

A telephone pole?

[Wild Cobra]

So what have you had shoved up your asshole?

A telephone pole?
Cannot say I've experienced such a thing. However, it still isn't torture. Wrong, perverted, illegal, yes! Torture, no.

[Extra Stout]

The threshold of torture should be explicitly defined as the point at which an action inflicts greater pain or terror than those which the US has carried out so far. That would clear up these issues entirely.

[ChumpDumper]

The threshold of torture should be explicitly defined as the point at which an action inflicts greater pain or terror than those which the US has carried out so far. That would clear up these issues entirely.:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Cannot say I've experienced such a thing. However, it still isn't torture. Wrong, perverted, illegal, yes! Torture, no.

1. Certain, clearly defined acts perpetrated against helpless prisoners, to force them to suffer excruciating pain and discomfort.

2. Cruel and outrageous acts that terrorize helpless prisoners to force or coerce them to react in a way that satisfies the torturer.

3. Any act committed by an official of a government against a prisoner of war which could cause undue pain, as clearly defined by many international agreements.Check, check and check.

[Wild Cobra]

Check, check and check.
Your idea of excruciating pain and terror must fall a bit short of what it really means. I'll bet you think a paper cut is excruciating pain too?

[ChumpDumper]

Tell me exactly what you have been sodomized with, who did it and how it made you feel.

[Spurminator]

You just compared a pole up the ass to a paper cut and you're wondering what I was laughing at.

[clambake]

must have gotten lonely on that farm

[Wild Cobra]

Tell me exactly what you have been sodomized with, who did it and how it made you feel.
Is that necessary? Now you are being cruel. Trying to get me to say you are torturing me?

Let's try something else here. What were the Abu Graib criminals trying to accomplish? Were they interrogating the prisoners, or just being sadistic?

What have the real interrogators done to torture? Why do it when we have an arsenal of drugs available that if they don't work, other techniques won't work either, will they?

Am I wrong to assume that it isn't really your point that some sick individuals placed prisoners in distress and pain, but you want someone to say that torture is a practice exercised in secret rather than the drugs known to work? The problem is, situations like Abu Graib is all you have. You have no real evidence of real torture.

It just doesn't make sense beyond the value it has as propaganda.

[Wild Cobra]

You just compared a pole up the ass to a paper cut and you're wondering what I was laughing at.
Not at all. Do you really think he meant a telephone pole up someones ass? Reality check please...

[Medvedenko]

Cobra dude...give it up...you're embarrassing yourself with each inane post you spew out. Forced Sodomy, sexual victimization and videotaped evidence of acts that go beyond anything resembling humane treatment of prisoners and you say....not torture...fuck you are a dumb bastard and I really pray you or your family doesn't have to go through any of these ordeals. Still, the Mcain speech you question...they guy you even said is the source that you trust on (torture).....keep coming....I just love the fact that you provided a definition and stick to it like it's the be all end all.....

Wild Cobra: It's all semantics really........

911: They weren't really terrorists...just regular murderers....nothing more nothing less....

[ChumpDumper]

Is that necessary?It is absolutely necessary for you to describe your experiences with sodomy to back up your claim that a stick forced up the ass is no worse than a paper cut.

[clambake]

It is absolutely necessary for you to describe your experiences with sodomy to back up your claim that a stick forced up the ass is no worse than a paper cut.
you are a riot!!!

[Extra Stout]

We're going about this the wrong way. I believe we would have better international relations if we let the changes ending torture occur naturally, rather than by the force of legislation.

[Extra Stout]

Wild Cobra is definitely mainstream and not at all a nutcase. Normal, ordinary Americans believe we should execute people for felony theft. Few people would regard forced sodomy with foreign objects as cruel or abnormal behavior. And the typical American opinion regarding human trafficking around the world is that we should allow it to go away naturally.

[clambake]

Wild Cobra is definitely mainstream and not at all a nutcase. Normal, ordinary Americans believe we should execute people for felony theft. Few people would regard forced sodomy with foreign objects as cruel or abnormal behavior. And the typical American opinion regarding human trafficking around the world is that we should allow it to go away naturally.
if only the south had won

[Wild Cobra]

It is absolutely necessary for you to describe your experiences with sodomy to back up your claim that a stick forced up the ass is no worse than a paper cut.
Sorry, I have no experience with sodomy. You know I wasn't saying it was the same as a paper cut, so please stop being intellectually dishonest.

[Spurminator]

Not at all. Do you really think he meant a telephone pole up someones ass? Reality check please...


No. I think he meant what he said. What kind of pole do you interpret it to be? What is the threshold for forced sodomy to be torture vs. mild discomfort?

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry, I have no experience with sodomy. You know I wasn't saying it was the same as a paper cut, so please stop being intellectually dishonest.
Your idea of excruciating pain and terror must fall a bit short of what it really means. I'll bet you think a paper cut is excruciating pain too?That is exactly what you were saying.

[Extra Stout]

No. I think he meant what he said. What kind of pole do you interpret it to be? What is the threshold for forced sodomy to be torture vs. mild discomfort?
How do you know the prisoners didn't like having glow sticks shoved up their butts? I have a reliable account that in fact the prisoners specifically demanded to have that done, since the guards wouldn't let them play Hide the Salami with one another. That is a much more reasonable explanation that this whole "torture" nonsense.

Just another one of those certain facts you ninnies conveniently ignore.

[Wild Cobra]

That is exactly what you were saying.
No it wasn't. I was infering that your idea of a paper cut would constitute torture.

[Extra Stout]

No it wasn't. I was infering that your idea of a paper cut would constitute torture.
Right, and by extension therefore you were saying that forced sodomy with foreign objects is a trifling thing, and then, by reductio ad absurdum, ridiculed the position that forced sodomy with foriegn objects is torture by saying a person holding such a position might as well claim that paper cuts are torture.

Don't backtrack! Stand firm for the rectitude of forced sodomy of prisoners! It's an entirely defensible position in ordinary company!

[Spurminator]

I think we're generalizing telephone polls here. Some of the newer telephone poles are quite smaller in diameter than older ones, and they splinter less.

[Extra Stout]

I think we're generalizing telephone polls here. Some of the newer telephone poles are quite smaller in diameter than older ones, and they splinter less.
Ooh poor baby, now you think splinters are torture? We're talking about a guy who dissolves his own skin with caustic as a leisure activity!

[Nbadan]

Carter speaks out...


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday.

"I don't think it. I know it," Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

"Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," Carter said. "We've said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime to which they are accused."

Carter also said President Bush creates his own definition of human rights.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/carter.torture/index.html)

[Wild Cobra]

Right, and by extension therefore you were saying that forced sodomy with foreign objects is a trifling thing, and then, by reductio ad absurdum, ridiculed the position that forced sodomy with foriegn objects is torture by saying a person holding such a position might as well claim that paper cuts are torture.

Don't backtrack! Stand firm for the rectitude of forced sodomy of prisoners! It's an entirely defensible position in ordinary company!
What a way of twisting things.

Yes, I am saying that forced sodomy is not torture! I never said otherwise.

I just have a very different take on what torture constitutes. It is not at the lower threshold that you liberals try to make it out as.

Again... Excruciating pain and Terror!

Not the realtively low pain you guys are pointing out.

[Extra Stout]

Carter speaks out...



CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/carter.torture/index.html)
Pffft. Says a guy who's afraid of squirrels.

"Ooh! Mommy! They dropped a squirrel in my tub! Torture! Torture!"

He probably thinks forced sodomy with rodents is torture, too. Ask Richard Gere about that one!

[Spurminator]

Ooh poor baby, now you think splinters are torture? We're talking about a guy who dissolves his own skin with caustic as a leisure activity!


Oh, of course not, just showing that with new innovations, a telephone pole in the ass can be even more bearable than it used to be. But that's not to say the old telephone poles constitute "excruciating pain"... splinters or not.

In some Asian religions, followers break bamboo in their rectums as a sign of their faith. I bet they don't think it's torture...

[Medvedenko]

Man, discussing what is torture and not torture....seriously....anal rape with a foreign object is deplorable and barbaric....but to some it's not "torture"...so rape is ok...well that's the american way I guess.

[ChumpDumper]

What a way of twisting things.

Yes, I am saying that forced sodomy is not torture! I never said otherwise.

I just have a very different take on what torture constitutes. It is not at the lower threshold that you liberals try to make it out as.

Again... Excruciating pain and Terror!

Not the realtively low pain you guys are pointing out.Again, how do you know having a stick shoved up your ass is "realtively" low pain? You speak as if you are an authority on having objects shoved up your ass, so how did you come to this conclusion?

[ChumpDumper]

And ES said "rectitude" :D

[Extra Stout]

What a way of twisting things.

Yes, I am saying that forced sodomy is not torture! I never said otherwise.

I just have a very different take on what torture constitutes. It is not at the lower threshold that you liberals try to make it out as.

Again... Excruciating pain and Terror!

Not the realtively low pain you guys are pointing out.
I understand exactly what your threshold is. If agents of the United States have done it, it is by definition not torture, because by definition the United States does not torture people! Why can't these bleeding hearts understand such a simple concept?

[clambake]

reading Wild Cobra's post has made me feel ashamed of the way I've treated Yonivore, and I'm sorry that he tries to represent your party.

[PixelPusher]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2007/10/10/waterboard1small.jpg

A waterboarding exhibit in a museum dedicated to the genocide and torture carried out by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Silly Cambodians...can't they tell the difference between torture and verschärfte vernehmung (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html), er, I mean enhanced interrogation techniques?

[xrayzebra]

Carter speaks out...



CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/carter.torture/index.html)


Which Carter would that be. The chair maker, the carpenter,
or inflation maker. I am so certain now what happened.
Because he is the same one who said Venezuela had
honest elections.

[Oh, Gee!!]

enhanced interrogation techniques?

give it a name, and people will believe it.

[Wild Cobra]

give it a name, and people will believe it.
Now water-boarding is a gray area for my. I don't know if it should be called torture or not. I tend to think it should be considered torture due to the level of terror it is capable of instilling!

[smeagol]

So what have you had shoved up your asshole?

A telephone pole?

You are going TSA on WC

[Wild Cobra]

You are going TSA on WC
And he wonders why I had him on IGNORE for several weeks.

[ChumpDumper]

I wonder why you think being sodomized with a stick is no worse than a paper cut.

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder why you think being sodomized with a stick is no worse than a paper cut.
See Smeagol, there he goes again.

Chump, you know I never said that, and I explained that before. You are just being a jack-ass again.

Saying neither is torture is not saying them are the same.

Why are you poisoning the debate?

[ChumpDumper]

You know I never said that
Your idea of excruciating pain and terror must fall a bit short of what it really means. I'll bet you think a paper cut is excruciating pain too?You poisoned the debate by equating forced sodomy with a stick with a paper cut.

[TDMVPDPOY]

would it make a difference if it wasnt a broom but a vibrator?

what happens if the pow is gay and enjoys it without telling the agent?

[clambake]

would it make a difference if it wasnt a broom but a vibrator?

what happens if the pow is gay and enjoys it without telling the agent?
excellent point. not torture, but sexual harassment

[Wild Cobra]

You poisoned the debate by equating forced sodomy with a stick with a paper cut.
OK, you just proved yourself to be a total idiot.

Show me where I say they are equal.

You cannot.

Come on man, back up you shit!

[ChumpDumper]

Show me where I say they are equal.I reposted your quote several times.

And the fact that you can't accept forced sodomy with a stick as fitting your definition of torture to a T is completely disingenuous and debate-poisoning.

Come on man, accept your own shit!

[clambake]

Come on man, back up you shit!

why do you spend so much time circling the exit?

[Oh, Gee!!]

whether an act qualifies as torture should be left up to the individual states to decide à la the 10th Amendment

[Extra Stout]

whether an act qualifies as torture should be left up to the individual states to decide à la the 10th Amendment
Terrorists in Portland will just have to get used to anal rape by the CIA then.

[RandomGuy]

Which Carter would that be. The chair maker, the carpenter,
or inflation maker. I am so certain now what happened.
Because he is the same one who said Venezuela had
honest elections.

Or the nuclear technician?

(note: Carter was the dry dock commander for the nations' first nuclear submarine)

[RandomGuy]

Two questions that I have yet to get an honest answer from any conservative on:

The war against Islamic extremism, aka the "war" on terror, etc. is a war of ideas.

The idea we are fighting is "the USA is evil and should be hated and reviled".


1) How does indefinite imprisonment without a perceived fair trial fight this idea?

2) How does torture of any kind fight this idea?

I will await an honest answer from any conservative. Liberals have the common sense to know the answers, but conservatives can't see it to save our lives, and that is why we are arguably losing the "war".

[RandomGuy]

Lunch break is over. I will check back in about 4 hours.

I don't expect to see a conservative with the intellectual honesty to answer my questions. That is ok. I am used to being diappointed with the "conservative" movement.

[Wild Cobra]

Two questions that I have yet to get an honest answer from any conservative on:

The war against Islamic extremism, aka the "war" on terror, etc. is a war of ideas.

The idea we are fighting is "the USA is evil and should be hated and reviled".

Now I'm not sure what you are saying here, but I think you are setting up a premise I don't fully agree with.



1) How does indefinite imprisonment without a perceived fair trial fight this idea?

Those involved in military linked actions are not the same as a domestic crime. They do get a fair trial. Tribunals are authorized in the constitution. They would probably get such tribunals much sooner if the liberals didn't try to get them open court type trials. Such actions don't necessarily occur until after a war is over anyway. I think those with such attitudes presume tribunals will be fixed. The military has too much integrity to conspire such a thing when the truth of guilt or innocence isn’t going to harm anyone. Methods on information gathering and sources however cannot be revealed in open court as long as they need to remain secret. You want the process to proceed quicker? Puch for the tribunals.



2) How does torture of any kind fight this idea?

Torture is not acceptable. Period. It is counterproductive.

[RandomGuy]

Now I'm not sure what you are saying here, but I think you are setting up a premise I don't fully agree with.


Those involved in military linked actions are not the same as a domestic crime. They do get a fair trial. Tribunals are authorized in the constitution. They would probably get such tribunals much sooner if the liberals didn't try to get them open court type trials. Such actions don't necessarily occur until after a war is over anyway. I think those with such attitudes presume tribunals will be fixed. The military has too much integrity to conspire such a thing when the truth of guilt or innocence isn’t going to harm anyone. Methods on information gathering and sources however cannot be revealed in open court as long as they need to remain secret. You want the process to proceed quicker? Puch for the tribunals.


Torture is not acceptable. Period. It is counterproductive.

:clap

A serious, thoughtful answer. Thank you.

Well let's see if we can arrive at a premise first.

We are not fighting a nation, but are ARE fighting something of a "movement". We can kill people all day long, but the NIE estimates have pretty much said that we are losing the battle of ideas. The slaughter in Iraq, Abu Gharaib, Gitmo, forced rendition, and all the other PR disasters have given the Al Qaeda (tm) brand a lot of credence in the muslim world.

There exists a spectrum of opinion about the US. At one end there are people who want to move here and become US citizens, and at the other end, you have Al Qaeda (tm) brand ideology.

Somewhere there are invisible lines between "actively seeking the destruction of the USA" and "willing to look the other way or simple money donations", and "neutral".

All of the aforementioned PR disasters have pushed more and more muslims over those lines. In a PR war, reality doesn't count as much as perceived reality, that is why this is a war of ideas, not of bullets or bombs. All the aircraft carrier battle groups in the world will not win it.

To this end answer these next two questions, so we can get some common ground:

If an American was arrested in Russia, held for years, and given a "secret military trial", would you accept a guilty verdict as "fair and impartial"?

Is the war on the Al Qaeda (tm) ideology a war of ideas or not?

[xrayzebra]

RandomGuy We are not fighting a nation, but are ARE fighting something of a "movement". We can kill people all day long, but the NIE estimates have pretty much said that we are losing the battle of ideas. The slaughter in Iraq, Abu Gharaib, Gitmo, forced rendition, and all the other PR disasters have given the Al Qaeda (tm) brand a lot of credence in the muslim world.

We are fighting religious fanatics. Who want to impose their
will on everyone who does not believe as they do. Some to
the extent that they will sacrifice their lives to destroy the
non-believers. This really is not a new thing. It happened
during the WWII. The Japanese did the same. The big difference
is that the religious fanatics hit soft targets, bitch slap you might
say, when they kill the innocent, non-combatants. That is
the difference. You say we are losing the PR war. But are we
really or is that what we are being fed. Look at what happened
just recently. Israel bombed Syria and no one said a word.
Quite as a church mouse in the ME. Why? Abu Gharaib was
way overblown and politicized to the point that no one really
knows what happen there. I read all these post in this forum
about sodomizing prisoners, I don't recall any such thing
happening. There was a group of idiot soldiers, with way too
much time on their hands doing stupid things with dog collars
and making people remove their clothes. But that is covered
in other threads.


There exists a spectrum of opinion about the US. At one end there are people who want to move here and become US citizens, and at the other end, you have Al Qaeda (tm) brand ideology.

I would bet there are more want to move here than
join the Al Qaeda movement. Wouldn't you?




If an American was arrested in Russia, held for years, and given a "secret military trial", would you accept a guilty verdict as "fair and impartial"?

Lets not use Russia. Let's use what has happened. When
the AQ has taken prisoners, given them the death sentence, without trial and beheaded them. Do I
consider this as fair and impartial. No! There is an old
saying, which I am sure you have heard. Everything is
fair in war and love. But obviously we have forgotten
this. They, AQ, is playing to win. Sometimes I am not
sure what we are doing.


Is the war on the Al Qaeda (tm) ideology a war of ideas or not?

Of course it is. We are trying to retain our way of life and
they on the other hand are trying to impose their way of
life on us and others. We have tried to interject the
free selection of leaders into their lives, which, some say
is alien to them, but Turkey has done it for years. But
if we succeed in establishing a country such as Turkey
in Iraq we will have another pro-western country that
wants their people to have the freedom of choice in
religion and who they vote for. At one time there was
quite Christian population in Iraq, but the Government
along with Muslim factions forced most to flee. England
has quite a group of them.

But saying all this, remember something. We didn't
attack AQ, they attack us. And AQ is not a country, but
some countries have welcomed them into their country
and allowed them free reign to do as they please.

[clambake]

Ray, what do mean "let's not use Russia as an example".

Current ideas are just too fast for you now. it's time for you to quilt.

[Wild Cobra]

:clap

A serious, thoughtful answer. Thank you.

Your welcome. I'm more than glad to spend time with someone else who can be civil, and intelligent. I will share some of my opinions about your clarifications below. Like I said, I didn't think I would completely agreed with your premise.



Well let's see if we can arrive at a premise first.

We are not fighting a nation, but are ARE fighting something of a "movement".

There is a definite movement, and Al Qaeda isn't alone in it. I consider the radical Islam's a combination of people who interpret the Koran to suit their agenda, and those who believe the slant they are told. Then there is this seventh millennium aspect. The timing is right. 2001 was the start in the minds of many religions as the final times. Some of these Islamic extremists do speak of bringing the twelfth Imam.



We can kill people all day long, but the NIE estimates have pretty much said that we are losing the battle of ideas.

Yes, but we are defeating ourselves. General Sanchez is dead on when he speaks of the media and our leaders doing us harm in this concept.



The slaughter in Iraq, Abu Gharaib, Gitmo, forced rendition, and all the other PR disasters have given the Al Qaeda (tm) brand a lot of credence in the muslim world.

Most of these stories are hyped to produce propaganda. Many stories from the field have been proven false in the aftermath with no retractions. Reporters sit safely in their green zone hotels while paying informants for information that is often nothing more than propaganda from the enemy. The media may not do it as propaganda intentionally, but for the sensational aspect of it for selling the news. The soldiers involved with Abu Ghriab are a disgrace to the uniform. No question about that, and I will not believe they were ordered or given permission to do such things. At least from a command level. In my opinion, everyone involved should get a dishonorable discharge. Now I have little to say about Guantanamo Bay. I hear reports that have proven false, and reports that I don't know about. Like you say though, a PR disaster.

As for the credibility of Al Qaeda and others, yes. Our media and leftist congressional leaders are emboldening the enemy by their words.



There exists a spectrum of opinion about the US. At one end there are people who want to move here and become US citizens, and at the other end, you have Al Qaeda (tm) brand ideology.

Somewhere there are invisible lines between "actively seeking the destruction of the USA" and "willing to look the other way or simple money donations", and "neutral".

All of the aforementioned PR disasters have pushed more and more muslims over those lines. In a PR war, reality doesn't count as much as perceived reality, that is why this is a war of ideas, not of bullets or bombs. All the aircraft carrier battle groups in the world will not win it.

I agree. What do we do about our enemy within though? If I had my way, I would have them rounded up for things ranging from inciting riot to treason, and court upheld 'time/place/manner' restrictions of the first amendment. You might say extreme, but do you disagree with me on the negative impact our own leaders and media is having? It's pretty bad when Al Jazeera plays clips of our own congressional leaders and media to motivate the insurgency.



To this end answer these next two questions, so we can get some common ground:

If an American was arrested in Russia, held for years, and given a "secret military trial", would you accept a guilty verdict as "fair and impartial"?

It depends on the circumstances. First of all, they do have sovereignty, and people traveling abroad are foolish not to check the laws and customs before traveling. I wouldn't know in a non combat situation if this person was a spy or not. Without being there I wouldn't be ably to ascertain the fairness of any trial, secret or not. Not knowing are agreements with them, that's the best answer I have.



Is the war on the Al Qaeda (tm) ideology a war of ideas or not?

If it was only of words and ideas, it wouldn't matter. Real people are killing other real people.

I don't think we will ever completely stop radicalized Islamic extremists without flat out decimating them. This is a Holy war to them. Again, a seventh millennium thing. We have to show them that our military might is stronger than their God. I see no other answer regarding those already indoctrinated. They will fight to their death, so we need to provide that.

As for the Muslins in general. Most of them just live in fear. Remove the fear and propaganda, and they are some great people.

There was an interesting revelation I heard about some time regarding the Sunni's and Shiite's. They weren't killing Americans because of the radicalized teachings of Islam, but because they are repeatedly told not only by their propaganda, but by our own democrat leaders that we are 'occupiers'. That we plan to control everything and steal their oil. Notice as the truth gets out to them, as we learned what they believe, there are far less insurgency uprisings...

Our soldiers are dying because of what the democrats who hate president Bush say. They choose political attacks over our soldiers lives.

I would expect you disagree with me on much of this. Ask away...

[RandomGuy]

:wow

Holy crap, this might actually turn into an intelligent discussion in a politics forum. Call the press, there is a story here.

[RandomGuy]

We are fighting religious fanatics. Who want to impose their
will on everyone who does not believe as they do. Some to
the extent that they will sacrifice their lives to destroy the
non-believers. This really is not a new thing. It happened
during the WWII. The Japanese did the same. The big difference
is that the religious fanatics hit soft targets, bitch slap you might
say, when they kill the innocent, non-combatants. That is
the difference. You say we are losing the PR war. But are we
really or is that what we are being fed. Look at what happened
just recently. Israel bombed Syria and no one said a word.
Quite as a church mouse in the ME. Why? Abu Gharaib was
way overblown and politicized to the point that no one really
knows what happen there. I read all these post in this forum
about sodomizing prisoners, I don't recall any such thing
happening. There was a group of idiot soldiers, with way too
much time on their hands doing stupid things with dog collars
and making people remove their clothes. But that is covered
in other threads.

We are fighting religious fanatics with a political agenda.
I know that the dumbassery that went on at Abu Gharaib was indeed an exception, not a rule.

What I know doens't count for shit in a PR war. It is not MY perception that matters but the perception of the billion or so muslims in the ME and elsewhere that counts.

Reality matters less than how it is spun by Al Qaeda and their sympathizers. They can use things that we are doing to "win over" people sitting on the fence.



I would bet there are more want to move here than
join the Al Qaeda movement. Wouldn't you?

Yes. Most definitely. I would say they are probably a majority. Again, that isn't my point.

Take the number 1,000,000,000. Now take one hudredth of one percent of that number. That is one hundred thousand.

If just one hudredth of a percent of that billion go from "neutral" to "looking the other way or giving money" we now have 100,000 more people that are working to harm us.

It isn't the terrorist whose opinion we are trying to win over, it is the sypathetic border gaurd who looks the other way, or the housewife who donates money to the cause that we have to worry about.



Lets not use Russia.

You missed the point. Once again, it is not what YOU think that matters, it is what the rest of the world does. I was merely trying to relate the idea to you. For a lot of the rest of the world, a US military "secret tribunal" in NOT seen as fair and impartial, just as you do not see such a "secret tribunal" as fair and impartial in Russia.

We are fighting for moral authority, and secret trials do not get that, no matter what reality is.



But saying all this, remember something. We didn't
attack AQ, they attack us. And AQ is not a country, but
some countries have welcomed them into their country
and allowed them free reign to do as they please.

I know all this. And the above is half of my point. We need the "soft power" of moral authority to win this war of ideas. Military force, as any general in Iraq will tell you, is necessary but not sufficient, just as lumber is necessary but not sufficient to build a house.

Giving AQ easy PR victories is the same as shoving money and guns under their nose. They will use these weapons to harm us.

[RandomGuy]

Dammit. My lunch break is waaay too short. I will try to get to Cobra's bit tonight.

[xrayzebra]

Your welcome. I'm more than glad to spend time with someone else who can be civil, and intelligent. I will share some of my opinions about your clarifications below. Like I said, I didn't think I would completely agreed with your premise.


There is a definite movement, and Al Qaeda isn't alone in it. I consider the radical Islam's a combination of people who interpret the Koran to suit their agenda, and those who believe the slant they are told. Then there is this seventh millennium aspect. The timing is right. 2001 was the start in the minds of many religions as the final times. Some of these Islamic extremists do speak of bringing the twelfth Imam.


Yes, but we are defeating ourselves. General Sanchez is dead on when he speaks of the media and our leaders doing us harm in this concept.


Most of these stories are hyped to produce propaganda. Many stories from the field have been proven false in the aftermath with no retractions. Reporters sit safely in their green zone hotels while paying informants for information that is often nothing more than propaganda from the enemy. The media may not do it as propaganda intentionally, but for the sensational aspect of it for selling the news. The soldiers involved with Abu Ghriab are a disgrace to the uniform. No question about that, and I will not believe they were ordered or given permission to do such things. At least from a command level. In my opinion, everyone involved should get a dishonorable discharge. Now I have little to say about Guantanamo Bay. I hear reports that have proven false, and reports that I don't know about. Like you say though, a PR disaster.

As for the credibility of Al Qaeda and others, yes. Our media and leftist congressional leaders are emboldening the enemy by their words.


I agree. What do we do about our enemy within though? If I had my way, I would have them rounded up for things ranging from inciting riot to treason, and court upheld 'time/place/manner' restrictions of the first amendment. You might say extreme, but do you disagree with me on the negative impact our own leaders and media is having? It's pretty bad when Al Jazeera plays clips of our own congressional leaders and media to motivate the insurgency.


It depends on the circumstances. First of all, they do have sovereignty, and people traveling abroad are foolish not to check the laws and customs before traveling. I wouldn't know in a non combat situation if this person was a spy or not. Without being there I wouldn't be ably to ascertain the fairness of any trial, secret or not. Not knowing are agreements with them, that's the best answer I have.


If it was only of words and ideas, it wouldn't matter. Real people are killing other real people.

I don't think we will ever completely stop radicalized Islamic extremists without flat out decimating them. This is a Holy war to them. Again, a seventh millennium thing. We have to show them that our military might is stronger than their God. I see no other answer regarding those already indoctrinated. They will fight to their death, so we need to provide that.

As for the Muslins in general. Most of them just live in fear. Remove the fear and propaganda, and they are some great people.

There was an interesting revelation I heard about some time regarding the Sunni's and Shiite's. They weren't killing Americans because of the radicalized teachings of Islam, but because they are repeatedly told not only by their propaganda, but by our own democrat leaders that we are 'occupiers'. That we plan to control everything and steal their oil. Notice as the truth gets out to them, as we learned what they believe, there are far less insurgency uprisings...

Our soldiers are dying because of what the democrats who hate president Bush say. They choose political attacks over our soldiers lives.

I would expect you disagree with me on much of this. Ask away...

WC, while I agree with alot of what you say, I would
like to disagree with some of it. But right now, with a
few glasses of wine, I really can't be coherent in my
reply. I really do enjoy a good give and take and yes,
I enjoy some that agree with me. So I shall return,
but not today. Carry on, my good friends.

[RandomGuy]

There is a definite movement, and Al Qaeda isn't alone in it. I consider the radical Islam's a combination of people who interpret the Koran to suit their agenda, and those who believe the slant they are told. Then there is this seventh millennium aspect. The timing is right. 2001 was the start in the minds of many religions as the final times. Some of these Islamic extremists do speak of bringing the twelfth Imam.

I know. I take all of that with a grain of salt, as people have been saying this kind of stuff for millenia.


Yes, but we are defeating ourselves. General Sanchez is dead on when he speaks of the media and our leaders doing us harm in this concept.

(shrugs)

"The media" is far too easy to blame when things go wrong, and is an easy scapegoat for people seeking to blame everyone but themselves for whatever problem of the day pops up. I am not saying that modern television news reporting isn't sensationalist drek, I just don't buy the whole "it's all the media's fault" bit.


Most of these stories are hyped to produce propaganda. Many stories from the field have been proven false in the aftermath with no retractions. Reporters sit safely in their green zone hotels while paying informants for information that is often nothing more than propaganda from the enemy.

Com' on, this is a bit of an exaggeration. It is not "propagada" to report on what is going on. Killing, revenge killing, revenge-revenge killing, and all manner of nasty things are going on, and that is not enemy propaganda, that is simply ground truth.

Most supporters of the war and this administration simply wave their hands and say "all bad news out of Iraq is propaganda". Bull-puckey. It is extremely short-sighted,a little bit childish, and downright dangerous in this situation to wave information away that one might not agree with.

Good decisions are rarely made with 1/2 the data needed.


I hear reports that have proven false, and reports that I don't know about. Like you say though, a PR disaster.

I agree, and here is some of the crux of my point. The bad things that we do will get magnified a hundred times, and a good chunk of stuff will be just made up intentionally, or simply be unsupported rumors reported as fact.
That is why we need to avoid even the perception of impropriety.

A company buying it's CPA auditors tickets to a baseball game might not actually effect the audits of the financial statements, but creates the perception of impropriety, and that is bad for both.


As for the credibility of Al Qaeda and others, yes. Our media and leftist congressional leaders are emboldening the enemy by their words.

Sorry, but it isn't just "leftists" that are against this clusterf***, and I highly doubt that your average suicide bomber gives a rats ass what Nancy Pelosi has to say about anything.

I don't doubt that opposition in the US against our continued occupation of Iraq is factored into the plans of many in Iraq, friend and foe alike. I just don't think and, frankly, don't care if it does "embolden" anybody. I don't see it as having an effect.

Quite honestly, I see the "emboldening" spin on the part of the administration as yet another cynical manipulation of people like you, no offense. I think it is simply a way that this administration is suckering people into thinking that opposition to their grabassery is somehow unpatriotic, and that REALLY makes me dislike them even more.

Given this administrations rather proven track record of saying one thing and doing/believing another, I am pretty sure that the people running things know that "emboldening" has little to no real effect on the ground.


If I had my way, I would have them rounded up for things ranging from inciting riot to treason, and court upheld 'time/place/manner' restrictions of the first amendment. You might say extreme, but do you disagree with me on the negative impact our own leaders and media is having?

I do. Further, I would say that giving up an inch of the first amendment is essentially saying that everything that Americans have died for in the last 200 years is worthless.

Our strength in terms of moral authority and as a nation lies in the ideals in the bills of rights. Give up that, and you give up one of the most powerful weapons we have.


[Regarding secret military trials]It depends on the circumstances. First of all, they do have sovereignty, and people traveling abroad are foolish not to check the laws and customs before traveling. I wouldn't know in a non combat situation if this person was a spy or not. Without being there I wouldn't be ably to ascertain the fairness of any trial, secret or not. Not knowing are agreements with them, that's the best answer I have.

If you were already suspicious of the motives of those giving the secret military trials, like say any totalitarian government that will charge a visiting scholars with "espionage" you would think it was full of shit, and you would probably be right.

BUT

Again, this is not what WE think, this whole thing is about perception of those "neutral" people on the border of those invisible lines in the spectrum of people's opinion of us.


I don't think we will ever completely stop radicalized Islamic extremists without flat out decimating them. This is a Holy war to them. Again, a seventh millennium thing. We have to show them that our military might is stronger than their God. I see no other answer regarding those already indoctrinated. They will fight to their death, so we need to provide that.

We did not win the Cold War by killing every communist in the world. We won it because they had a failed ideology that didn't live up to its promises.

I am all for killing when necessary. As I have said before it is necessary, but not sufficient, just as lumber is necessary but not sufficient to build a house.

The other front of this war uses "soft power" and other means to push the people who are on the border of helping or actively joining this ideology into less harmful categories.


As for the Muslins in general. Most of them just live in fear. Remove the fear and propaganda, and they are some great people.

Correction:
Most live in poverty under corrupt, repressive governments. They see their own governments doing all sorts of nasty things, and grew up under such conditions. They are very susceptible to believing the worst about the motivations of the powerful.

I personally believe that the "war" on terror is really a war against poverty and repression, as both of these breed the kind of hopelessness and rage that spill over into masses of willing recruits for people with violent "solutions".

Try reading this book by Thomas P. M. Barnett, The Pentagons New Map (http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm). This guy is shaping the way that the current crop of middle officers, and our nation's future generals think about war and the function of the military. I happen to think he is also right, as he put into a more concrete framework, things I had being thinking for a while.


There was an interesting revelation I heard about some time regarding the Sunni's and Shiite's. They weren't killing Americans because of the radicalized teachings of Islam, but because they are repeatedly told not only by their propaganda, but by our own democrat leaders that we are 'occupiers'. That we plan to control everything and steal their oil. Notice as the truth gets out to them, as we learned what they believe, there are far less insurgency uprisings...

Our soldiers are dying because of what the democrats who hate president Bush say. They choose political attacks over our soldiers lives.

I would expect you disagree with me on much of this. Ask away...

I have to call "bullshit" on this. Source?

AQ has been saying this for decades, and it is this administrations blundering in post-war Iraq that has made this stuff much more credible, not anything any democrat has said.

[Wild Cobra]

I know. I take all of that with a grain of salt, as people have been saying this kind of stuff for millenia.

Except by biblical accounts, we are in the 7th millennia as of 2001 and the twelfth Imam is a real concept in their religeon. This is definately different than past times.



(shrugs)

"The media" is far too easy to blame when things go wrong, and is an easy scapegoat for people seeking to blame everyone but themselves for whatever problem of the day pops up. I am not saying that modern television news reporting isn't sensationalist drek, I just don't buy the whole "it's all the media's fault" bit.

Not all is the medias fault. Would you deny that Al Jazeera broadcasting our leaders pubilcally dissenting has a motivational effect for insurgency?



Com' on, this is a bit of an exaggeration. It is not "propagada" to report on what is going on. Killing, revenge killing, revenge-revenge killing, and all manner of nasty things are going on, and that is not enemy propaganda, that is simply ground truth.

Except their have been real examples over the years of absolutely false stories! It has been documented several times! Plenty of stories have been hyped, but plenty were complete fabrications too.



Most supporters of the war and this administration simply wave their hands and say "all bad news out of Iraq is propaganda". Bull-puckey. It is extremely short-sighted,a little bit childish, and downright dangerous in this situation to wave information away that one might not agree with.

Really? I don't know of a single example that says that. Do you? There is plenty of real news that is bad. To imply my reasoning that some false news means all is would be way off.



Good decisions are rarely made with 1/2 the data needed.

You lost me here as to equating to reporting. News is suppose to be true and accurate. Otherwise it belongs in gossip columns.



I agree, and here is some of the crux of my point. The bad things that we do will get magnified a hundred times, and a good chunk of stuff will be just made up intentionally, or simply be unsupported rumors reported as fact.
That is why we need to avoid even the perception of impropriety.

It is statistically impossible to accomplish zero impropriety when dealing with such a vast number of human individuals. That is one reason why reporting lies about the situations should be dealt with harshly.



Sorry, but it isn't just "leftists" that are against this clusterf***, and I highly doubt that your average suicide bomber gives a rats ass what Nancy Pelosi has to say about anything.

I never said others than 'the lefties' were not against the war, but how many non-lefties who are in leadership positions are careless about their words to the point it emboldens the enemy? I am speaking out against those who are choosing party politics or Bush bashing over what is right when it amounts to sedition.



I don't doubt that opposition in the US against our continued occupation of Iraq is factored into the plans of many in Iraq, friend and foe alike. I just don't think and, frankly, don't care if it does "embolden" anybody. I don't see it as having an effect.

Would those choosing to newly side with Iraq or become a suicide bomber do so if the USA leaders were solidly united? Doesn't the talk about us losing, or being occupiers, or us being there for the oil possible inspire the Iraqi's to fight against us, seeing us as the enemy rather than their champion?



Quite honestly, I see the "emboldening" spin on the part of the administration as yet another cynical manipulation of people like you, no offense. I think it is simply a way that this administration is suckering people into thinking that opposition to their grabassery is somehow unpatriotic, and that REALLY makes me dislike them even more.

Stop thinking in terms or what we know, and the freedoms we enjoy. Put yourself in their shoes and the strict structures they live under. Without knowing us, they believe the propaganda.



Given this administrations rather proven track record of saying one thing and doing/believing another, I am pretty sure that the people running things know that "emboldening" has little to no real effect on the ground.

I believe otherwise. I really think that they wouldn't be ably to muster the support against us without our own leaders saying we are wrong to be their.



I do. Further, I would say that giving up an inch of the first amendment is essentially saying that everything that Americans have died for in the last 200 years is worthless.

I'm not speaking of just any speech. I mean the same types of exceptions ruled by courts that don't allow you to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre or incite riot. Our leaders are effectively inviting subversion over there, against out soldiers.



Our strength in terms of moral authority and as a nation lies in the ideals in the bills of rights. Give up that, and you give up one of the most powerful weapons we have.

Everything must be tempered with reasonable limits. That's why certain hate crime actions like hanging a noose is punishable rather than a first amendment right. That's why threatening someone's life can be a crime rather than free speech.

Do you disagree that there needs to be reasonable limits of the first amendment? Maybe we just don't agree where that point is. Where would you place it when it comes to warfare?



If you were already suspicious of the motives of those giving the secret military trials, like say any totalitarian government that will charge a visiting scholars with "espionage" you would think it was full of shit, and you would probably be right.

BUT

Again, this is not what WE think, this whole thing is about perception of those "neutral" people on the border of those invisible lines in the spectrum of people's opinion of us.

I'm sorry. I am not one to live and likely die because of such politically correct beliefs. I prefer truth over perception.



We did not win the Cold War by killing every communist in the world. We won it because they had a failed ideology that didn't live up to its promises.

I am all for killing when necessary. As I have said before it is necessary, but not sufficient, just as lumber is necessary but not sufficient to build a house.

The other front of this war uses "soft power" and other means to push the people who are on the border of helping or actively joining this ideology into less harmful categories.

Do you think there is reasoning with an enemy that sees us as infidels? The radicals are living by a code that they either convert us, or kill us. If you don't believe that, then I suggest you do some research on it.



I have to call "bullshit" on this. Source?

Sure, if you asked me months ago. Old news, and too many stories to filter through. Too many search hits that reflect opinion rather than the stories coming from over there. Look at the reporting of Al Jazeera, and tell me that such stories don't make the insurgency hopeful rather than discouraged:

Democrats attack Bush war policy (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6FE08194-5DDE-4B18-902B-0F5EBF40A172.htm)

Democrats: Bush reckless in Iraq (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/14B4E92B-8ACD-4EF8-80EF-7E0C3744B749.htm)



AQ has been saying this for decades, and it is this administrations blundering in post-war Iraq that has made this stuff much more credible, not anything any democrat has said.

Sure, mistakes are made. Must the democrats compound them?

[RandomGuy]

Hmm. No offense, but you don't seem to be understanding what I was saying. I would recommend reading it again. I would recommend that when you do so, you go back over my previous posts as well, as some of what I say in my last posts refers to some of the prior postings.


Originally Posted by RandomGuy
We did not win the Cold War by killing every communist in the world. We won it because they had a failed ideology that didn't live up to its promises.

I am all for killing when necessary. As I have said before it is necessary, but not sufficient, just as lumber is necessary but not sufficient to build a house.

The other front of this war uses "soft power" and other means to push the people who are on the border of helping or actively joining this ideology into less harmful categories.

[Cobra responded]
Do you think there is reasoning with an enemy that sees us as infidels? The radicals are living by a code that they either convert us, or kill us. If you don't believe that, then I suggest you do some research on it.

The above is an example.

I have acknowledged that the hard-core AQ are really not going to be dissuaded or convinced.

What I DID say, more than once is that we are fighting for the fence sitters, not the hard core element.

Killing one bastard is all well and good, but if you end up doing things that piss off 10 others who will look the other way, convert to being hard core, or give money to the hard core of AQ, you have not helped your cause.

Focusing too narrowly on killing misses the broader picture. It is like a car company improving quality to sell more cars but completely ignoring customer service. To be a successful car company you can't do one or the other, you have to do both.

This is what I am talking about when I say that we need to use the other weapons in our arsenal, such as moral authority, money, and diplomacy.

[Wild Cobra]

Hmm. No offense, but you don't seem to be understanding what I was saying. I would recommend reading it again. I would recommend that when you do so, you go back over my previous posts as well, as some of what I say in my last posts refers to some of the prior postings.

Maybe not. I'm pretty tired right now anyway. I'll do just that. Read it again, later.

[johnsmith]

Hmm. No offense, but you don't seem to be understanding what I was saying. I would recommend reading it again. I would recommend that when you do so, you go back over my previous posts as well, as some of what I say in my last posts refers to some of the prior postings.



Ego stroking thread.

[RandomGuy]

Ego stroking thread.

Meh. I am more interested in communicating an idea correctly than stroking my own ego.

This is not my thread, I am merely talking about something I have given a lot of thought to.

[Wild Cobra]

Hmm. No offense, but you don't seem to be understanding what I was saying.

I read it again. I actually was more coherent that you made me think I was originally.



I would recommend that when you do so, you go back over my previous posts as well, as some of what I say in my last posts refers to some of the prior postings.

Well, I'm not taking that much time. Keep in mind, I was responding to the (then) current text of what I understood. I will expand a little.





We did not win the Cold War by killing every communist in the world. We won it because they had a failed ideology that didn't live up to its promises.

I am all for killing when necessary. As I have said before it is necessary, but not sufficient, just as lumber is necessary but not sufficient to build a house.

The other front of this war uses "soft power" and other means to push the people who are on the border of helping or actively joining this ideology into less harmful categories.


[Cobra responded]
Do you think there is reasoning with an enemy that sees us as infidels? The radicals are living by a code that they either convert us, or kill us. If you don't believe that, then I suggest you do some research on it.

The above is an example.

I have acknowledged that the hard-core AQ are really not going to be dissuaded or convinced.

What I DID say, more than once is that we are fighting for the fence sitters, not the hard core element.

That's fine, but this was in response to my statement:



I don't think we will ever completely stop radicalized Islamic extremists without flat out decimating them. This is a Holy war to them. Again, a seventh millennium thing. We have to show them that our military might is stronger than their God. I see no other answer regarding those already indoctrinated. They will fight to their death, so we need to provide that.

Maybe I should have expanded, but the cold war is completely different to me. I started with a question "Do you think there is reasoning with an enemy that sees us as infidels?" wondering if that was your solution.

I see no similarities that matter. The people of the USSR were not actively jointing what a huge authoritarian government chose to do. A religious war is unlike any other.

The people if Iraq know the stakes, and that we do try to avoid killing the innocent. The few bad apples are exposed and taken action against. As a whole, the Iraqi people know they are less likely to die by us than under Saddam. I think most the examples shown of Iraqi hatred because of a loved one killed by accident are more lies coming from the enemy. They have studied us well, and use our own sense of morality against us.

As for the fence sitters, I will maintain the belief that our own leaders who speak words of sedition push them to the wrong side rather than our unfortunate accidents that harm civilians.



Killing one bastard is all well and good, but if you end up doing things that piss off 10 others who will look the other way, convert to being hard core, or give money to the hard core of AQ, you have not helped your cause.

I don't believe most of the accounts of civilian casualties caused by us. Sure some have happened, but not as many as the media reports. You take terrorists or insurgence who are in civilian attire, kill them, then their friends remove their weapons...

Walla...

Instant civilian for propaganda purposes. Now I'm not saying this is the norm, but it does happen, and we don't really know how many times.



Focusing too narrowly on killing misses the broader picture. It is like a car company improving quality to sell more cars but completely ignoring customer service. To be a successful car company you can't do one or the other, you have to do both.

Sorry, I believe the radicals are so steeped in their religious beliefs, that killing them is the only way to stop them. Making things hard, cutting supplies, money, etc. will only slow them down. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they either need to be in jail, or dead.



This is what I am talking about when I say that we need to use the other weapons in our arsenal, such as moral authority, money, and diplomacy.

Proven to my satisfaction not to work. Israel has tried that over and over, yet the enemies of Israel take the diplomacy as a way to recuperate and rebuild with the money given, then attack again later.

[RandomGuy]

I am not saying we limit ourselves to non-violent means to combat the AQ ideology.

I just don't think evil is the way to go when combatting them.