I don't see you coming up with any answers for something that DOES NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE SOLUTION. You just seem content to watch your country compromise its principles for scant reward.usmarine2005 wrote:
Seems like you have the answers. So tell us, what will prevent 100% of terrorist attacks from this day forward? And if you define terrorist attack, you will see how far back in history it goes. So tell us Mr. expert. Stop fucking telling us what is wrong, and tell us what will save us from all harm.
My life has not changed one bit. It is the same as it was when I was a kid. Sure things are different, but we go about our daily lives. Go to work, come home, eat dinner, go to bed. That has not changed at all. Now I know this may not mean much, but when I went to Afghanistan in December of 2001, I saw firsthand what Al-Q wants to and is prepared to do. I cannot tell you the immense joy of revenge I felt killing those fuckers. Now, given that time, I think you can understand that.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't see you coming up with any answers for something that DOES NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE SOLUTION. You just seem content to watch your country compromise its principles for scant reward.usmarine2005 wrote:
Seems like you have the answers. So tell us, what will prevent 100% of terrorist attacks from this day forward? And if you define terrorist attack, you will see how far back in history it goes. So tell us Mr. expert. Stop fucking telling us what is wrong, and tell us what will save us from all harm.
I did see them fight with no regard at all for human life. Shooting out of houses with a family in it. Using a car as a bomb with a family in it just to explode it at a checkpoint. You cannot reason with that. You may not agree with what has lead up to this...and I tend to agree with most of it. But this is where we are. I cannot change the past. All I know is they want to kill us and have little regard for "rules" of war. (By rules I mean not using a kid as a shield.)
That is what soldiers do. You don't just sit around and collect college money. Do I think it is worth it? I wish nobody would have to die. But we volunteer and pledge to defend America. I think so far that has been accomplished. (by defend I am referring to no attacks in the US since 2001)B.Schuss wrote:
I mean, seriously, are you saying that after all that has happened in Iraq, and all the people that have died, are you really saying that you're better off today than in 2003 ? Sure, no more attacks on US soil since then, but as I said, you are buying that "success" with the blood of your soldiers overseas.
One of your better posts in quite some time. You highlight the issue here: "You cannot reason with that."usmarine2005 wrote:
My life has not changed one bit. It is the same as it was when I was a kid. Sure things are different, but we go about our daily lives. Go to work, come home, eat dinner, go to bed. That has not changed at all. Now I know this may not mean much, but when I went to Afghanistan in December of 2001, I saw firsthand what Al-Q wants to and is prepared to do. I cannot tell you the immense joy of revenge I felt killing those fuckers. Now, given that time, I think you can understand that.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't see you coming up with any answers for something that DOES NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE SOLUTION. You just seem content to watch your country compromise its principles for scant reward.usmarine2005 wrote:
Seems like you have the answers. So tell us, what will prevent 100% of terrorist attacks from this day forward? And if you define terrorist attack, you will see how far back in history it goes. So tell us Mr. expert. Stop fucking telling us what is wrong, and tell us what will save us from all harm.
I did see them fight with no regard at all for human life. Shooting out of houses with a family in it. Using a car as a bomb with a family in it just to explode it at a checkpoint. You cannot reason with that. You may not agree with what has lead up to this...and I tend to agree with most of it. But this is where we are. I cannot change the past. All I know is they want to kill us and have little regard for "rules" of war. (By rules I mean not using a kid as a shield.)
This type of terrorism simply needs to be confined over there in backwardassland - something achievable through strong domestic security and stringent border controls. It is futile to engage in these perpetual wars of attrition for no discernible gain, while the name of your nation gets sullied and dragged through the mud for their underhand actions.
I checked the word...even though I know what it means. And I'm still right.CameronPoe wrote:
Erm. No. The quote actually implies the exact opposite. Check the word 'incompatible'.FEOS wrote:
No. You did. See below:CameronPoe wrote:
You will have freedom, liberty and democracy with or without waterboarding. Are you suggesting there is a direct correlation between waterboarding and maintenance of freedom in the US?CameronPoe wrote:
Now whether you guys concede it or not the US tries to legitimise its actions on the global scene with it's 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'democracy' platform and rhetoric. Those kind of values are incompatible with the use of waterboarding, i.e. torture.
You say those values are incompatible with waterboarding. You keep saying the US is waterboarding hundreds (see below). So, if the US is waterboarding, and the values you listed are incompatible with waterboarding, then you are saying those values aren't in place in the US, since incompatible implies an either-or: we either have freedom, liberty, and democracy, or we have waterboarding. If you didn't mean incompatible, you should have used another word.
Well, since you're "quite sure", I guess we should just take your word for it.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm quite sure that hundreds have been subjected to this treatment. The principle of actually resorting to such methods is abhorrent and no amount of 'but it helped' will excuse the fact that it is uncivilised and beneath what one would expect of the US. The US can no longer criticise the human rights records of others.
Or not.
When the US starts breaking bones, burning skin, gouging out eyes, hanging from ropes until joints come out of socket, etc...then you'll have a leg to stand on WRT us being able to criticize the human rights records of others. If those others were only waterboarding, you'd be right. Since they're not...you're not.
See above.CameronPoe wrote:
We all have an inkling that this is not isolated to three incidents.
Strange that your theory didn't prove true with regard to these two, isn't it? These guys were captured before AQ went completely decentralized and focused on Iraq...hence, they had information that led to roll ups and prevented attacks. You're applying AQ's approach now, when you should be applying their approach/structure from before these guys were captured.CameronPoe wrote:
There is not really any such thing as a high roller in bottom up terrorism either, and anyhow there are safeguards in place when a terrorist operative is compromised. All the victim can do is supply you with names, many of which might just be his own personal enemies...
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I think the fundamental difference here is that I don't believe torture should be used, on principle, in any incidence. And waterboarding is torture. The world will regard the US in a dimmer light than usual following these revelations, and I don't think anyone can complain about that. The US have sadly dropped their standards.FEOS wrote:
I checked the word...even though I know what it means. And I'm still right.CameronPoe wrote:
Erm. No. The quote actually implies the exact opposite. Check the word 'incompatible'.FEOS wrote:
No. You did. See below:CameronPoe wrote:
You will have freedom, liberty and democracy with or without waterboarding. Are you suggesting there is a direct correlation between waterboarding and maintenance of freedom in the US?
You say those values are incompatible with waterboarding. You keep saying the US is waterboarding hundreds (see below). So, if the US is waterboarding, and the values you listed are incompatible with waterboarding, then you are saying those values aren't in place in the US, since incompatible implies an either-or: we either have freedom, liberty, and democracy, or we have waterboarding. If you didn't mean incompatible, you should have used another word.Well, since you're "quite sure", I guess we should just take your word for it.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm quite sure that hundreds have been subjected to this treatment. The principle of actually resorting to such methods is abhorrent and no amount of 'but it helped' will excuse the fact that it is uncivilised and beneath what one would expect of the US. The US can no longer criticise the human rights records of others.
Or not.
When the US starts breaking bones, burning skin, gouging out eyes, hanging from ropes until joints come out of socket, etc...then you'll have a leg to stand on WRT us being able to criticize the human rights records of others. If those others were only waterboarding, you'd be right. Since they're not...you're not.See above.CameronPoe wrote:
We all have an inkling that this is not isolated to three incidents.Strange that your theory didn't prove true with regard to these two, isn't it? These guys were captured before AQ went completely decentralized and focused on Iraq...hence, they had information that led to roll ups and prevented attacks. You're applying AQ's approach now, when you should be applying their approach/structure from before these guys were captured.CameronPoe wrote:
There is not really any such thing as a high roller in bottom up terrorism either, and anyhow there are safeguards in place when a terrorist operative is compromised. All the victim can do is supply you with names, many of which might just be his own personal enemies...
You can bet, or you can go with the reported facts as they stand. It appears you'll go with your suppositions rather than the facts...OK.Dilbert_X wrote:
That would be, off the top of my head:-FEOS wrote:
Waterboarding was the worst thing done to detainees. And that was only done to three. Where's the torture you are decrying again?
Waterboarding - Since it has been part of US military tactics for a long time I'll bet more than three people have suffered it lately. Its clearly torture.
Sleep deprivation
Stress positions
Beatings
Threats with dogs
Electrocution
Basically everything which has been going on at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and the CIA secret prisons during the past five years, which is illegal under various international conventions.
Nobody buys the 'unlawful combatant' crap.
Your govt is slowly realising what it has done, which is why they are wiping tapes and falling over each other to condemn it - the point of the OP.
Sleep deprivation=not torture
Stress positions=not torture
Beatings=prove it
Threats with dogs=not torture
Electrocution=prove it. If you're talking about the infamous "hood on the head, standing on a box, with electrodes on the fingers" Abu Ghraib picture, you're off base. Hooking up electrodes to someone--making them think they are going to be shocked--is completely different than doing it. One is physical (and torture), one is mental (and not).
And the point of the OP was the hypocrisy of a select group of US lawmakers...not problems with waterboarding per se.
Waterboarding isn't a foreign policy. It's an interrogation technique.Dilbert_X wrote:
Waterboarding is just a small symptom of the unimaginative, brutal and shortsighted approach the US uses in its foreign policies. Its unnecessary and in the long run counterproductive.
Vietnam was a military success. It was a political failure.Dilbert_X wrote:
Vietnam was a military failure as a result of the above.
We've still got resources to deal with other problem areas. When you start talking Russia and China, neither one of those (if they were to turn into conflict) are ground-combat centric scenarios.Dilbert_X wrote:
Against terrorists its impossible to win, you can't lose either but it can give you a lot of trouble, the US needs to find different way than the one it is currently pursuing.
In the meantime while US is concentrating its resources on a few crazy misguided guys in pyjama suits the US dollar and economy are collapsing and Russia and China are resurgent.
The dollar is down (not out), and the economy is still one of the strongest in the world--both are far from "collapsing".
That's entirely possible. But considering that the bulk of the problem has been with Sunni, vice Shia, insurgents, how do you explain that?Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats not really too hard, the Iranians have got a bit jittery and asked the Shia militias to pull back for a while.FEOS wrote:
As for Iraq, not getting a lot of press nowadays. Why do you think that is?
In the long run Iraq will become the (in name or otherwise) Western province of Iran - 5, 10, 20 or so years - they don't care too much. They have realised its better to play the long game than take a risk pulling it in by a year or two.
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
cynical, but agreed.usmarine2005 wrote:
That is what soldiers do. You don't just sit around and collect college money. Do I think it is worth it? I wish nobody would have to die. But we volunteer and pledge to defend America. I think so far that has been accomplished. (by defend I am referring to no attacks in the US since 2001)B.Schuss wrote:
I mean, seriously, are you saying that after all that has happened in Iraq, and all the people that have died, are you really saying that you're better off today than in 2003 ? Sure, no more attacks on US soil since then, but as I said, you are buying that "success" with the blood of your soldiers overseas.
However, as Cam has said, why not simply leave iraq, and resort to border security and intelligence for america's safety then ? I mean, it cannot be any more expensive than supplying 140,000 troops in the iraqi desert. And no more dieing on your part.
Well, this particular tidbit was in there:Dilbert_X wrote:
You need to take a look at what has been going on at Bagram Air Base and the Salt Pit, where people have been tortured, hung from ropes until they lose the use of their limbs and been beaten or frozen to death.When the US starts breaking bones, burning skin, gouging out eyes, hanging from ropes until joints come out of socket, etc...then you'll have a leg to stand on WRT us being able to criticize the human rights records of others.
Its clearly US policy to do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_tor … oner_abuse
'What happened at Abu Ghraib was no aberration, but part of a widespread pattern. It showed the tragic impact of the initial decision by Mr. Bush and his top advisers that they were not going to follow the Geneva Conventions, or indeed American law, for prisoners taken in antiterrorist operations.
The investigative file on Bagram, obtained by The Times, showed that the mistreatment of prisoners was routine: shackling them to the ceilings of their cells, depriving them of sleep, kicking and hitting them, sexually humiliating them and threatening them with guard dogs -- the very same behavior later repeated in Iraq.'
You may not like Wiki but its fully referenced.
If it was policy, why were they charged with a crime? Because it's not policy, and the people who do those things are punished. The acts of criminals operating outside of approved policy is not systemic torture. It's isolated cases and the people who do it are held accountable.wiki wrote:
Seven soldiers were charged.
We're talking about whether something is torture, not whether something violates some part of the Geneva convention.Dilbert_X wrote:
I disagree, either way its illegal under both the Geneva convention and civil law so what the US is doing is morally reprehensible and a crime, which is why they are now trying to cover their tracks.Sleep deprivation=not torture
Stress positions=not torture
Beatings=prove it
Threats with dogs=not torture
When people are found to have violated it, they are prosecuted (a la Abu Ghraib).
Here is some interesting reading that goes into a bit more detail on it than Wiki.
Haven't we covered this ground before? In this thread even?Dilbert_X wrote:
If these methods are all fine why don't the FBI and CIA use them routinely on US citizens as they work so well?
CIA doesn't do anything to US citizens. That's the FBI's job. There are different policies governing law enforcement activities (FBI) and foreign intelligence collection activities (CIA). That is why.
Then what does that have to do with the OP, or the thread in general? I apologize...I thought you were staying on topic.Dilbert_X wrote:
I was talking about the economic gains they are making compared with the US. Its not all about war.We've still got resources to deal with other problem areas. When you start talking Russia and China, neither one of those (if they were to turn into conflict) are ground-combat centric scenarios.
There's nothing new about it. As to your "body bag" comment: when have politicians from any country come home from war in body bags? Casualties does not equate to failure. It is an unfortunate common thing in warfare: people get hurt and killed.Dilbert_X wrote:
Well thats a new one! Whatever, it was a US political disaster then. Still, I don't remember politicians coming home in body bags.Vietnam was a military success. It was a political failure.
I put it forward as another example of the US failing to achieve anything through violence.
I expect they are still grateful for the chemical weapons dumped all over their country.
We're talking about waterboarding three people during interrogation. You bring up a war as a comparison?
Dumping defoliant is not chemical warfare, as you imply. The fact that the defoliant turned out to be harmful--while regrettable--does not make it fall in the category of "chemical weapon". If it had been used specifically to harm people on the ground (it wasn't), then you would have a valid point. It wasn't, and you don't.
Last edited by FEOS (2007-12-14 07:19:18)
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Exactly.B.Schuss wrote:
cynical, but agreed.usmarine2005 wrote:
That is what soldiers do. You don't just sit around and collect college money. Do I think it is worth it? I wish nobody would have to die. But we volunteer and pledge to defend America. I think so far that has been accomplished. (by defend I am referring to no attacks in the US since 2001)B.Schuss wrote:
I mean, seriously, are you saying that after all that has happened in Iraq, and all the people that have died, are you really saying that you're better off today than in 2003 ? Sure, no more attacks on US soil since then, but as I said, you are buying that "success" with the blood of your soldiers overseas.
However, as Cam has said, why not simply leave iraq, and resort to border security and intelligence for america's safety then ? I mean, it cannot be any more expensive than supplying 140,000 troops in the iraqi desert. And no more dieing on your part.
The 9/11 attacks were the result of poor airline security on domestic flights and a lack of intelligence on terrorists entering and operating within the United States. Why not tighten up security on all borders and on all people coming into the country and eliminate threats that way. Fighting a war in a foreign country where Al Qaeda never had a stronghold in the first place was pure folly. And you can't even say Iraq would have launched any kind of long range attacks on the US because, as we all knew, they never had the capabilities. The US has an incredible geographical advantage in terms of domestic security; you have friendly neighbours on either side (neither of which would provide much of a fight in a war scenario) and oceans to your East and West. Unless these axis of evil countries develop long range missiles the likes of which we've never seen used before then the US have nothing to be stressed about.
And back to the subject of torture I notice people like FEOS and others appear to choose to believe the best about these tales of torture, claiming that these cases are not indicative of a more widespread problem. Well call me a cynic but I believe what we the public get to find out (in pretty much any story involving Government policy anywhere in the world) is usually only the tip of the iceberg. The fact that people were charged is often only as a result of the stories being discovered by the press.
I for one do not take the US Government's word on anything anymore, we were promised time and time again that no prisoners of any description were being brought through Shannon airport and alas US soldiers were caught bringing a man in handcuffs through the airport on one of their military flights. We were promised that the troops would not be allowed to have their weapons with them as they pass through the airport and alas pictures appeared in the papers here of troops hanging out in the airport with their guns.
I wish my Government would grow a pair and check the goddamn flights.
I certainly understand your cynicism. Believe it or not, I'm cynical about most "public" things coming out of any government.Braddock wrote:
And back to the subject of torture I notice people like FEOS and others appear to choose to believe the best about these tales of torture, claiming that these cases are not indicative of a more widespread problem. Well call me a cynic but I believe what we the public get to find out (in pretty much any story involving Government policy anywhere in the world) is usually only the tip of the iceberg. The fact that people were charged is often only as a result of the stories being discovered by the press.
However, when it comes to debating things, I prefer to go with things that are either documented in some way, or that I know beyond the shadow of a doubt to be true based on my personal experience. What I do not like, and have been arguing against here, is emotional, hyperbole based solely on someone's personal belief (irrespective of facts to the contrary) about a given topic.
You say people were charged only because it was discovered by the press. I'm pretty sure people get charged all the time, whether it's released to the press or not. In fact, it's often the charging of those people that drives the press reports and further investigation by the press. Whether you choose to believe it or not, the US military polices itself pretty well.
It would be interesting to see if anyone got the smackdown for those clear violations of that agreement. If not, they should. My guess is that the soldiers in question weren't even aware of those restrictions. But someone was.Braddock wrote:
I for one do not take the US Government's word on anything anymore, we were promised time and time again that no prisoners of any description were being brought through Shannon airport and alas US soldiers were caught bringing a man in handcuffs through the airport on one of their military flights. We were promised that the troops would not be allowed to have their weapons with them as they pass through the airport and alas pictures appeared in the papers here of troops hanging out in the airport with their guns.
I wish my Government would grow a pair and check the goddamn flights.
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Braddock, I can tell you from my own experience that we were not allowed to bring weapons into the airport at Shannon. Weapons stay on the plane. Bought a big chunk of toblerone.Braddock wrote:
I for one do not take the US Government's word on anything anymore, we were promised time and time again that no prisoners of any description were being brought through Shannon airport and alas US soldiers were caught bringing a man in handcuffs through the airport on one of their military flights. We were promised that the troops would not be allowed to have their weapons with them as they pass through the airport and alas pictures appeared in the papers here of troops hanging out in the airport with their guns.
I wish my Government would grow a pair and check the goddamn flights.
Wanna know something funny. When we arrived at JFK airport in new york, they still made us take our boots off when we through the security check point. I mean, we have our weapons in the plane.
Also, I dont know about the handcuffed dude, but the army isnt in the business of transporting prisoners by ATA airlines with other troops. And especially not from Iraq. As far as I know all detainees captured in Iraq have remained in Iraq.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-12-14 08:26:22)
Thursday the US House passed a bill that, among other things, banned waterboarding.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/ … ME_3616832
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/ … ME_3616832
The House of Representatives on Thursday approved an intelligence bill that bans the Central Intelligence Agency from using waterboarding, mock executions and other harsh interrogation methods.
The 222-199 vote sent the measure to the Senate, which still must act before it can go to President Bush. The White House has threatened a veto.
The bill, a House-Senate compromise to authorize intelligence operations in 2008, also blocks spending 70 percent of the intelligence budget until the House and Senate intelligence committees are briefed on Israel’s Sept. 6 air strike on an alleged nuclear site in Syria.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
there are ways around that, im sure.
That third paragraph is interesting....?
Kmarion wrote:
Thursday the US House passed a bill that, among other things, banned waterboarding.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/ … ME_3616832The House of Representatives on Thursday approved an intelligence bill that bans the Central Intelligence Agency from using waterboarding, mock executions and other harsh interrogation methods.
The 222-199 vote sent the measure to the Senate, which still must act before it can go to President Bush. The White House has threatened a veto.
The bill, a House-Senate compromise to authorize intelligence operations in 2008, also blocks spending 70 percent of the intelligence budget until the House and Senate intelligence committees are briefed on Israel’s Sept. 6 air strike on an alleged nuclear site in Syria.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Just punch them in the balls. All this waterboarding/upside down hanging/rock music/other weird methods. Wtf is this shit, just keep it simple and beat them up. No need to totally fuck their minds up...
im curious to know why there havent been massive headlines and sound bites on the news because of that. syria has remained pretty quiet too. iran too.
A take from Hot AirKmarion wrote:
That third paragraph is interesting....?Kmarion wrote:
Thursday the US House passed a bill that, among other things, banned waterboarding.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/ … ME_3616832The House of Representatives on Thursday approved an intelligence bill that bans the Central Intelligence Agency from using waterboarding, mock executions and other harsh interrogation methods.
The 222-199 vote sent the measure to the Senate, which still must act before it can go to President Bush. The White House has threatened a veto.
The bill, a House-Senate compromise to authorize intelligence operations in 2008, also blocks spending 70 percent of the intelligence budget until the House and Senate intelligence committees are briefed on Israel’s Sept. 6 air strike on an alleged nuclear site in Syria.
It’s that third paragraph that has me puzzled. Why did the House vote to block 70% of our own intelligence budget until the intel committees get briefed on the Israeli raid on Syria? There’s a cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face quality about that move that strikes me as stunningly stupid. While I’d like to find out what happened in that September raid as much as anyone, handcuffing our own intelligence agencies in the middle of a war is not the right way to go about getting that information. (If they want to handcuff the IC to stop it from trying to make policy rather than do it’s job, that’s another matter and I’m inclined to support it.) There’s also an element of danger about this, since Congress has been notoriously leaky. If the intel committees get briefed, presumably with their committee staffs present, whatever they hear will get leaked and wind up on the front page of the NYT. That’s likely to upset a thing or two in the Middle East. There are a few members of Congress who know what happened in that raid, and they could presumably give select briefings on the topic that are confined to a very few members in both parties. President Bush should veto this bill based on the Syria raid demand alone, never mind that Congress is going about the waterboarding ban in entirely the wrong way. They ban they’re putting in place would prohibit any aggressive interrogation of the next high value target captured, which may be someone as high in al Qaeda as Ayman al-Zawahiri or even Osama himself. We would forfeit learning whatever we could from them about ongoing attack plans and about the terrorist network itself for the sake of soothing Congressional and other sensitive consciences. That strikes me as unwise. Especially when you consider that in the case of Congress at least, the sensitive conscience act is mostly a pose.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kicking someone in the ball isn't going to work when extracting information... The guy needs to know that unless he speaks the fuck up he's in for something worse, something permanent. They also need to not know what it is, adds to the fear.Mekstizzle wrote:
Just punch them in the balls. All this waterboarding/upside down hanging/rock music/other weird methods. Wtf is this shit, just keep it simple and beat them up. No need to totally fuck their minds up...
the intelligence dragon has a lot of different heads. I believe anything involving the CIA in the media is done for a particular reason.
Ive got a theory on this.
How is it an insult? I was going to ask the same exact thing. How can you claim to be Christian and support this? From my reading of the bible, christ never took the easy route...Stingray24 wrote:
If you'd re-read my post you should notice that I'm trying to do is point out that what is considered torture it is part of the world the CIA functions in. I'm also pointing out that the definition of torture varies depending on who you ask. All interrogation could likely be desribed as some form of torture. Most "normal" people would probably be scarred for life after having gone through even "acceptable" interrogation. It's also how things work. If you believe anything different, you're incredibly niave. Go give the Brits, Germans, and French the 3rd degree about their intelligence operations for the sake of consistency since that seems to be what you're worried about.
I have nothing else to say to you since you have to resort to questioning my commitment to my chosen faith. Step off and go insult someone else with whom you disagree with. Good day, sir.
it not an insult. Its trying to understand the contradiction.
I think the handcuffed dude turned out to be a military detainee (i.e. one of your own) but this still violates the rules against transporting prisoners or detainees through Ireland.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Braddock, I can tell you from my own experience that we were not allowed to bring weapons into the airport at Shannon. Weapons stay on the plane. Bought a big chunk of toblerone.Braddock wrote:
I for one do not take the US Government's word on anything anymore, we were promised time and time again that no prisoners of any description were being brought through Shannon airport and alas US soldiers were caught bringing a man in handcuffs through the airport on one of their military flights. We were promised that the troops would not be allowed to have their weapons with them as they pass through the airport and alas pictures appeared in the papers here of troops hanging out in the airport with their guns.
I wish my Government would grow a pair and check the goddamn flights.
Wanna know something funny. When we arrived at JFK airport in new york, they still made us take our boots off when we through the security check point. I mean, we have our weapons in the plane.
Also, I dont know about the handcuffed dude, but the army isnt in the business of transporting prisoners by ATA airlines with other troops. And especially not from Iraq. As far as I know all detainees captured in Iraq have remained in Iraq.
You said you had your guns with you on the plane when you passed through Shannon, this is interesting because apparently special permission has to be sought to transport munitions of war on flights through Ireland and permission was only sought for one such flight during the year of the weapons controversy (2003). We are frequently told by the authorities that there are NO weapons at all on these flights. Who are we to believe (not that I'm questioning your claim, I'd believe that before our own politicians)?
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/20 … 993494.asp
I doubt they'd tell the civilian population everything that is going on that is military related.Braddock wrote:
I think the handcuffed dude turned out to be a military detainee (i.e. one of your own) but this still violates the rules against transporting prisoners or detainees through Ireland.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Braddock, I can tell you from my own experience that we were not allowed to bring weapons into the airport at Shannon. Weapons stay on the plane. Bought a big chunk of toblerone.Braddock wrote:
I for one do not take the US Government's word on anything anymore, we were promised time and time again that no prisoners of any description were being brought through Shannon airport and alas US soldiers were caught bringing a man in handcuffs through the airport on one of their military flights. We were promised that the troops would not be allowed to have their weapons with them as they pass through the airport and alas pictures appeared in the papers here of troops hanging out in the airport with their guns.
I wish my Government would grow a pair and check the goddamn flights.
Wanna know something funny. When we arrived at JFK airport in new york, they still made us take our boots off when we through the security check point. I mean, we have our weapons in the plane.
Also, I dont know about the handcuffed dude, but the army isnt in the business of transporting prisoners by ATA airlines with other troops. And especially not from Iraq. As far as I know all detainees captured in Iraq have remained in Iraq.
You said you had your guns with you on the plane when you passed through Shannon, this is interesting because apparently special permission has to be sought to transport munitions of war on flights through Ireland and permission was only sought for one such flight during the year of the weapons controversy (2003). We are frequently told by the authorities that there are NO weapons at all on these flights. Who are we to believe (not that I'm questioning your claim, I'd believe that before our own politicians)?
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/20 … 993494.asp
The fact is that they should though (the Irish Government that it), especially if they're knowingly allowing Irish law to be broken ...it would be grounds to have those in power removed.M.O.A.B wrote:
I doubt they'd tell the civilian population everything that is going on that is military related.Braddock wrote:
I think the handcuffed dude turned out to be a military detainee (i.e. one of your own) but this still violates the rules against transporting prisoners or detainees through Ireland.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Braddock, I can tell you from my own experience that we were not allowed to bring weapons into the airport at Shannon. Weapons stay on the plane. Bought a big chunk of toblerone.
Wanna know something funny. When we arrived at JFK airport in new york, they still made us take our boots off when we through the security check point. I mean, we have our weapons in the plane.
Also, I dont know about the handcuffed dude, but the army isnt in the business of transporting prisoners by ATA airlines with other troops. And especially not from Iraq. As far as I know all detainees captured in Iraq have remained in Iraq.
You said you had your guns with you on the plane when you passed through Shannon, this is interesting because apparently special permission has to be sought to transport munitions of war on flights through Ireland and permission was only sought for one such flight during the year of the weapons controversy (2003). We are frequently told by the authorities that there are NO weapons at all on these flights. Who are we to believe (not that I'm questioning your claim, I'd believe that before our own politicians)?
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/20 … 993494.asp