20th Hijacker - No prosecution due to torture

2009-01-14 05:37:22

#1

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

US agents at Guantanamo Bay tortured a Saudi man suspected of involvement in the 11 September attacks, the official overseeing trials at the camp has said.
Susan Crawford told the Washington Post newspaper that Mohammad al-Qahtani had been left in a "life-threatening condition" after being interrogated.
She said Mr Qahtani had been subjected to sustained periods of cold, isolation and sleep deprivation.
Mr Qahtani remains at Guantanamo, but all charges against him were dropped.
He had been facing trial on counts of conspiracy, terrorism, and murder in violation of the laws of war.

Although officials gave no reason for halting the prosecution in May 2008, Ms Crawford said in her interview that the decision had been taken because of the methods used by US agents.
"His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case," she said.

Ms Crawford, who was appointed convening authority for military commissions in February 2007, said Mr Qahtani had been interrogated for 18 to 20 hours a day almost continuously for eight weeks.

"The techniques they used were all authorised, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent," she said.
Ms Crawford said she was shocked, upset and embarrassed by the treatment he had received.

She said: "If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques?
"How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it."

Mr Qahtani has been in detention at Guantanamo since 2002, after being picked up in Afghanistan.
The US authorities had accused him of intending to take part in the 11 September attacks, and he was labelled the "20th hijacker".
He had tried to travel to the US in August 2001, but had been refused entry.
Despite her decision to drop the prosecution, Ms Crawford said Mr Qahtani remained a "very dangerous man".
"There's no doubt in my mind he would have been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in August 2001," she said.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7828126.stm

Another 'Good jaaaaahhb' to Duhbya.

Fuck Israel

2009-01-14 06:00:04

#2

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6456|what

Mr Qahtani remains at Guantanamo, but all charges against him were dropped.

Oh, even when charges are dropped they can still hold you. Wonder where he'll end up once gitmo closes.

Somewhere sunny I'll bet.

2009-01-14 06:33:08

#3

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6832|Global Command

I think the right thing to do here would be to fly him back to Afghanistan, and push him out the door somewhere over the Himilaya.

2009-01-14 06:45:29

#4

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6832|Global Command

To the karma coward;

"
Despite her decision to drop the prosecution, Ms Crawford said Mr Qahtani remained a "very dangerous man".
"There's no doubt in my mind he would have been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in August 2001," she said. "

2009-01-14 06:49:34

#5

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6456|what

ATG wrote:
To the karma coward;

"
Despite her decision to drop the prosecution, Ms Crawford said Mr Qahtani remained a "very dangerous man".
"There's no doubt in my mind he would have been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in August 2001," she said. "

It was me if your going to get your panties in a knot.

Can't see how he can be kept in prison for being a very dangerous man. You can't be charged with character traits now can you? Oh, I mean held without charge because of character traits. Since that's what is happening.

Maybe you should allow to be tried for being dangerous. Or even potentially dangerous. I know, attempted dangerous persona. Stunt men all over the US will have to change job descriptions.

2009-01-14 06:51:55

#6

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6832|Global Command

Well, to me its about circumstantial evidence and cost/risk analysis.

If chucking him out a plane is too harsh how about parachuting him into a hog pen full of hungry half starved pigs. Works for me.

2009-01-14 06:53:33

#7

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7069|Cambridge (UK)

TheAussieReaper wrote:
Mr Qahtani remains at Guantanamo, but all charges against him were dropped.
Oh, even when charges are dropped they can still hold you.

Yes, because we're the civilised ones.

2009-01-14 06:54:40

#8

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6456|what

ATG wrote:
Well, to me its about circumstantial evidence and cost/risk analysis.

If chucking him out a plane is too harsh how about parachuting him into a hog pen full of hungry half starved pigs. Works for me.

Nah, just torture him some more.

That's the beauty of circumstantial evidence, you can always acquire real evidence through torture.

2009-01-14 10:47:27

#9

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6714|'Murka

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
TheAussieReaper wrote:
Mr Qahtani remains at Guantanamo, but all charges against him were dropped.
Oh, even when charges are dropped they can still hold you.
Yes, because we're the civilised ones.

Actually, it has to do with whether his home country is willing to take him back and also whether or not releasing back to his home country would result in a reasonable chance of him being tortured/killed.

The definition of torture used here is utterly laughable. By that definition, millions and millions of people have been tortured in multiple countries all over the world...they're called "military" and "police" and "rescuers" and whatnot.

Fucking ridiculous, tbh.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-01-14 11:08:55

#10

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,984|6935|949

FEOS wrote:
The definition of torture used here is utterly laughable. By that definition, millions and millions of people have been tortured in multiple countries all over the world...they're called "military" and "police" and "rescuers" and whatnot.
Fucking ridiculous, tbh.

What exactly did they define as torture? I couldn't find it in the article, just a mention that certain techniques that were permissible in 2002 but now restricted were used. I'm thinking if the procedures have been outlawed sometime between 2002 and now obviously some people within the government didn't think they were "laughable".

That being said, I am glad that we are recognizing that things like this

She said: "If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques?
"How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it."

continue to permeate into the consciousness of man.

2009-01-14 15:10:41

#11

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

ATG wrote:
If chucking him out a plane is too harsh how about parachuting him into a hog pen full of hungry half starved pigs. Works for me.

He hasn't even been charged with anything, let alone convicted.
Your govt fucked up, your govt has to eat the consequences.

How about we chuck you in a hog pen?
I'm sure you've done something somewhere deserving of a harsh punishment, no need for a trial lets just do it.

FEOS wrote:
The definition of torture used here is utterly laughable.

Its your governments definition, and I guess laughable does pretty much describe most of what your govt has done lately.

FEOS wrote:
By that definition, millions and millions of people have been tortured in multiple countries all over the world...they're called "military" and "police" and "rescuers" and whatnot.

There's a difference between volunteering for arduous duty, which you can leave whenever you like, and being locked in a cell and having it forced on you with no end in sight.

Fuck Israel

2009-01-14 20:31:49

#12

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6714|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The definition of torture used here is utterly laughable. By that definition, millions and millions of people have been tortured in multiple countries all over the world...they're called "military" and "police" and "rescuers" and whatnot.
Fucking ridiculous, tbh.
What exactly did they define as torture? I couldn't find it in the article, just a mention that certain techniques that were permissible in 2002 but now restricted were used. I'm thinking if the procedures have been outlawed sometime between 2002 and now obviously some people within the government didn't think they were "laughable".

That being said, I am glad that we are recognizing that things like this
She said: "If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques?
"How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it."
continue to permeate into the consciousness of man.

The description used referred to sleep deprivation, nudity, temperature changes, and humiliation. Break my fucking heart. He wasn't beaten, cut, electrocuted, waterboarded, or anything else.

And I've got news for you: The enemy we're talking about here would (and has) torture and kill our troops regardless of how these detainees are treated. In fact, if they submitted our people to the same techniques, it would be an improvement.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-01-14 20:34:43

#13

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The definition of torture used here is utterly laughable.
Its your governments definition, and I guess laughable does pretty much describe most of what your govt has done lately.

And what do you base that conclusion upon? The definition usually referred to is the GC's definition...which is laughable.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
By that definition, millions and millions of people have been tortured in multiple countries all over the world...they're called "military" and "police" and "rescuers" and whatnot.
There's a difference between volunteering for arduous duty, which you can leave whenever you like, and being locked in a cell and having it forced on you with no end in sight.

And there's also a difference between torture and what happened to this guy.

The main beef the official had wasn't the techniques that were used, but rather that they were used to a point where the detainee's health was compromised. In essence, they weren't doing their job to ensure that his health was taken care of...which is--again--not torture. It's interrogators not doing their job.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-01-14 20:52:56

#14

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

The main beefs were:
They were taken to the point the detainee nearly died.
They were considered legal then but are considered torture now.
Actually its a narrow window, created by the Bush admin, during which time they weren't considered torture.

FEOS wrote:
It's interrogators not doing their job.

No its interrogators going well beyond their job and torturing instead of interrogating.

FEOS wrote:
The definition usually referred to is the GC's definition...which is laughable

You consider the GC laughable, well thats a surprise.

FEOS wrote:
And there's also a difference between torture and what happened to this guy.

The Republican appointed Judge in the case has determined it was torture, go argue with her.

Must have been a pretty serious overstepping of the mark for the 20th hijacker to not be brought to trial.
I mean, the only living person closely connected with the actual 9/11 operation is not going to be prosecuted?
Amazing.

Fuck Israel

2009-01-14 21:18:34

#15

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
The main beefs were:
They were taken to the point the detainee nearly died.
They were considered legal then but are considered torture now.
Actually its a narrow window, created by the Bush admin, during which time they weren't considered torture.

No, that's not it at all.

The techniques themselves were not considered torture...and still aren't.

The method of application (overly extended application of the techniques) endangered the detainee's health. That's not torture. That's failure to properly care for a detainee. There is a difference.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
It's interrogators not doing their job.
No its interrogators going well beyond their job and torturing instead of interrogating.

See above.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The definition usually referred to is the GC's definition...which is laughable
You consider the GC laughable, well thats a surprise.

1. That's not what I said.
2. You're one to talk about anyone blowing off the GC.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
And there's also a difference between torture and what happened to this guy.
The Republican appointed Judge in the case has determined it was torture, go argue with her.

The political party of the official who appointed her is irrelevant. She is using inflammatory language and using it improperly. She said herself that the techniques used were legal and were not torture. Then she goes on to further explain what she had a problem with...which was the care of the detainee and his resultant health problems. If you feed a detainee steak for every meal and don't let them exercise, their health will suffer because of it. Is that torture? Of course not. It's failure to provide proper health care for the detainee...for which the staff there should be investigated and held accountable.

Dilbert_X wrote:
Must have been a pretty serious overstepping of the mark for the 20th hijacker to not be brought to trial.
I mean, the only living person closely connected with the actual 9/11 operation is not going to be prosecuted?
Amazing.

Oh, that's right. KSM wasn't "closely connected with the actual 9/11 operation", was he?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-01-15 00:09:31

#16

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
The techniques themselves were not considered torture...and still aren't.

They are now.
"The Pentagon said their methods were legal in 2002, when the interviews took place - though some were now banned"

FEOS wrote:
The method of application (overly extended application of the techniques) endangered the detainee's health. That's not torture. That's failure to properly care for a detainee. There is a difference.

Its torture.
If I keep you awake for five minutes thats not torture, if I keep you awake for five weeks (where its known one week will cause permanent physical and mental damage) thats torture.
If I drop one drop of water on your forehead its not torture, if I make it one drop a minute for a month that is torture.
Application also determines what is torture, as the Judge has found ""His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case," she said", which is why the guys isn't being charged with anything.

FEOS wrote:
If you feed a detainee steak for every meal and don't let them exercise, their health will suffer because of it.

Pretty sure feeding someone a steak dinner wouldn't leave someone in a "life-threatening condition".
And providing you don't force feed them, which did happen at Guantanamo, it would't be torture.

FEOS wrote:
1. That's not what I said.

Thats exactly what you said. "The definition usually referred to is the GC's definition...which is laughable"

FEOS wrote:
Oh, that's right. KSM wasn't "closely connected with the actual 9/11 operation", was he?

Dunno, was he planning to get on one of the planes? I said 'the actual 9/11 operation'.

Fuck Israel

2009-01-16 19:37:23

#17

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The techniques themselves were not considered torture...and still aren't.
They are now.
"The Pentagon said their methods were legal in 2002, when the interviews took place - though some were now banned"

Are you saying the legality determines whether it's torture or not?

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The method of application (overly extended application of the techniques) endangered the detainee's health. That's not torture. That's failure to properly care for a detainee. There is a difference.
Its torture.
If I keep you awake for five minutes thats not torture, if I keep you awake for five weeks (where its known one week will cause permanent physical and mental damage) thats torture.
If I drop one drop of water on your forehead its not torture, if I make it one drop a minute for a month that is torture.
Application also determines what is torture, as the Judge has found ""His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case," she said", which is why the guys isn't being charged with anything.

And none of those instances are reflective of what happened in this case. What happened was that the officials responsible for his health did not do their jobs. It has nothing to do with interrogation techniques and everything to do with prisoner care. Which, if you weren't so ridiculously unobjective, you would see from the content of the article.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
If you feed a detainee steak for every meal and don't let them exercise, their health will suffer because of it.
Pretty sure feeding someone a steak dinner wouldn't leave someone in a "life-threatening condition".
And providing you don't force feed them, which did happen at Guantanamo, it would't be torture.

You're purposely being obtuse at this point. If you feed them a diet that--in excess--is unhealthy, their health will suffer. That's not torture by any definition...just poor prisoner care.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
1. That's not what I said.
Thats exactly what you said. "The definition usually referred to is the GC's definition...which is laughable"

What I said is what you quoted, not what you said I said. There is a difference.

Saying the GC's definition of torture is laughable is a far cry from saying the GC itself, as a whole, is laughable.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Oh, that's right. KSM wasn't "closely connected with the actual 9/11 operation", was he?
Dunno, was he planning to get on one of the planes? I said 'the actual 9/11 operation'.

That's right. Those who planned, trained, and financed those guys weren't "closely connected". Once again, you might as well put a neon sign over your head that says "I know nothing about which I opine". It would be just as obvious as the content of your posts.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-01-16 19:50:35

#18

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6708|North Carolina

Note to all future interrogation/torture systems: When it turns out the guy isn't guilty of a crime but is still clearly interested in committing the crime you're investigating -- kill him and then bury his body somewhere no one will find him.

One thing I've never quite understood about Gitmo is its visibility. At least renditions were more covert. If you're going to torture people, do it where no one knows about it, or where you can pay off everyone to keep quiet about it. (re: Uzbekistan)

2009-01-16 23:34:18

#19

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Are you saying the legality determines whether it's torture or not?

If its not legal what is it?

FEOS wrote:
And none of those instances are reflective of what happened in this case. What happened was that the officials responsible for his health did not do their jobs.

He was kept awake for ~ one solid month and left close to death, thats a bit more than people not doing their jobs.

FEOS wrote:
That's right. Those who planned, trained, and financed those guys weren't "closely connected". Once again, you might as well put a neon sign over your head that says "I know nothing about which I opine". It would be just as obvious as the content of your posts.

I know what I meant by 'actual operation', and I explained it. You're just being a twat now.
Did KSM travel to the US? Did he do flight training? Was he planning to be one of the hijackers? Thats what I meant by the 'actual operation'.

Fuck Israel

2009-01-17 21:21:52

#20

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Are you saying the legality determines whether it's torture or not?
If its not legal what is it?

There are perfectly legal things that are called torture. Plus, you have to ask "illegal according to which law?"

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
And none of those instances are reflective of what happened in this case. What happened was that the officials responsible for his health did not do their jobs.
He was kept awake for ~ one solid month and left close to death, thats a bit more than people not doing their jobs.

No, that's pretty much exactly what that is.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
That's right. Those who planned, trained, and financed those guys weren't "closely connected". Once again, you might as well put a neon sign over your head that says "I know nothing about which I opine". It would be just as obvious as the content of your posts.
I know what I meant by 'actual operation', and I explained it. You're just being a twat now.
Did KSM travel to the US? Did he do flight training? Was he planning to be one of the hijackers? Thats what I meant by the 'actual operation'.

So, in order to be "close" to it, you have to have actually taken part in it? Doesn't seem like there's anyone left who was "close" to it, by your definition.

If pointing out the holes in your argument (no pun intended) makes me a twat...guilty as charged.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-01-17 21:33:46

#21

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

There are perfectly legal things that are called torture

Apparently the US doesn't do torture.

No, that's pretty much exactly what that is.

Deliberately torturing and nearly killing someone is not the same as someone not doing their job.

So, in order to be "close" to it, you have to have actually taken part in it? Doesn't seem like there's anyone left who was "close" to it, by your definition.

I've never said 'close' I said 'involved in the actual operation' not 'close' or 'involved in the planning'.
Taken part, due to take part, whatever. He was due to take part in the actual operation. You can play with words all you like, you're just being petty.

But whatever, the 20th hijacker will not be prosecuted due to law-breaking/fuckups/desire not to expose to the world how much torturing the US does.
Pretty amazing fuckup really.

Fuck Israel

2009-01-17 21:56:13

#22

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
There are perfectly legal things that are called torture
Apparently the US doesn't do torture.

Who said I was talking about the US?

Dilbert_X wrote:
No, that's pretty much exactly what that is.
Deliberately torturing and nearly killing someone is not the same as someone not doing their job.

They weren't torturing the person. The failure came in those who are supposed to ensure the health of the detainees. Those are a whole separate crew.

Dilbert_X wrote:
So, in order to be "close" to it, you have to have actually taken part in it? Doesn't seem like there's anyone left who was "close" to it, by your definition.
I've never said 'close' I said 'involved in the actual operation' not 'close' or 'involved in the planning'.
Taken part, due to take part, whatever. He was due to take part in the actual operation. You can play with words all you like, you're just being petty.

But whatever, the 20th hijacker will not be prosecuted due to law-breaking/fuckups/desire not to expose to the world how much torturing the US does.
Pretty amazing fuckup really.

Let's just see what you actually said, shall we?

Dilbert_X wrote:
Must have been a pretty serious overstepping of the mark for the 20th hijacker to not be brought to trial.
I mean, the only living person closely connected with the actual 9/11 operation is not going to be prosecuted?
Amazing.

I've gone ahead and highlighted the important part.

You call it being petty...I call it being correct. You call it playing with words...I call it using the words that you used.

And again, if you want to call sleep deprivation, temperature changes, loud music, and other things like that torture...go right ahead. But that's the most ridiculous, pussy definition I've seen. Especially since all of those techniques were legal at the time (which you yourself said made them not torture, being legal and all), cause no physical damage in and of themselves, and are done to people every day all over the world yet not considered torture outside of Gitmo.

So the next time you're tired, cold, and at a rock concert...just remember: torture.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-01-17 21:59:12

#23

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7065

FEOS wrote:
So the next time you're tired, cold, ...just remember: torture.

fuck the USA tortured me for many years then. fuck you mr. sam!

2009-01-18 05:01:53

#24

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

Feos wrote:
Who said I was talking about the US?

I was talking about the US, the guy was in US custody, I have no idea what you're talking about.

They weren't torturing the person. The failure came in those who are supposed to ensure the health of the detainees. Those are a whole separate crew.

Its one crew effectively, how they choose to divide responsibility is up to them.

the only living person closely connected with the actual 9/11 operation is not going to be prosecuted?
Amazing.

Actual operation, read it.

But that's the most ridiculous, pussy definition I've seen.

Its the Geneva convention definition and has always been, its the definition your govt used before 9/11 and uses again now, its the definition the judge is using to determine he's not going to be prosecuted.
I didn't choose the definition, don't like it hard luck, go argue with them.

So the next time you're tired, cold, and at a rock concert...just remember: torture.

You're just being childish now.
Going to a rock concert is a voluntary act, you know when it will end, you can walk out any time you like.
Being kept awake for a month straight is torture, simple as that, as is the rest of what was done to this guy.

In the end its not my problem, you vigourously supported torturing people, look how its backfired.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-18 05:03:19)

Fuck Israel

2009-01-18 05:38:01

#25

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
Feos wrote:
Who said I was talking about the US?
I was talking about the US, the guy was in US custody, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I was talking about in general, worldwide, there are things done that are "legal" that some view as torture. The point being that application of legal definitions of torture is fraught with subjectivity and ambiguity.

Dilbert_X wrote:
They weren't torturing the person. The failure came in those who are supposed to ensure the health of the detainees. Those are a whole separate crew.
Its one crew effectively, how they choose to divide responsibility is up to them.

Oh, I see. You're an expert on US operations at Gitmo now. Thanks for enlightening us. I'll let the guy I know (who is actually working there) that he's clearly misinformed.

Dilbert_X wrote:
the only living person closely connected with the actual 9/11 operation is not going to be prosecuted?
Amazing.
Actual operation, read it.

I did read it. Perhaps you should.

Dilbert_X wrote:
But that's the most ridiculous, pussy definition I've seen.
Its the Geneva convention definition and has always been, its the definition your govt used before 9/11 and uses again now, its the definition the judge is using to determine he's not going to be prosecuted.
I didn't choose the definition, don't like it hard luck, go argue with them.
So the next time you're tired, cold, and at a rock concert...just remember: torture.
You're just being childish now.
Going to a rock concert is a voluntary act, you know when it will end, you can walk out any time you like.
Being kept awake for a month straight is torture, simple as that, as is the rest of what was done to this guy.

Doesn't matter whether it's voluntary or not, does it? What matters is what is done to the person, willing or not. Doesn't matter whether you know it will end or not...that doesn't change what is being done.

So, by your "logic", if you know they won't kill you (ie, it will end at some point), you're not being tortured. I guess those Gitmo guys haven't been tortured at all then...by your argument, at least.

He wasn't kept awake for a month straight. He was kept from sleeping soundly for a month straight. There is a difference.

Dilbert_X wrote:
In the end its not my problem, you vigourously supported torturing people, look how its backfired.

Where have I vigorously supported torturing people? I have argued about what constitutes torture, which is a fairly broad argument amongst many parties today.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums 20th Hijacker - No prosecution due to torture

ATG wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

ATG wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Feos wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Feos wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer