Gitmo?

[IvanKaramozov]

Why does that matter?

“Demonstrator Maboud Ebrahimzadeh is held down during a simulation of waterboarding outside the Justice Departement in Washington November 5, 2007. The confirmation of Bush nominee Michael Mukasey as attorney general is in jeopardy after his refusal to state whether the interrogation techinque known as waterboarding violates U.S. laws banning torture. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES)”

That technique was used on three people that we know of, one went through all the minor procedures, he lasted an astonishing 30ish seconds, the next day he said Allah had visited him in the night and told him to talk, to make things easier on his brothers.

What kind of technique is this that it could utterly break this man who was unscathed by slaps, sleep depervation, had in his capture been shot three times and fallen from a roof and barely survived, etc

yet in thirty seconds(the maximum withstand time for CIA agents was 10-12 seconds) he broke, and would never resist questioning again?

The CIA agent on ABC said he considered it torture and, while effective, should not be used “we’re better than that”

 

[rpp]

Why does that matter?

Because I would be very interested in the story behind it. Was it a demonstration of the procedure or an actual use it? Was it taken at Gitmo or some other place? Is the picture legitimate?

And why are you so defiant here? It is a reasonable question.

I appreciate the story, but you have provided no link.

 

[rpp]

Why does that matter?

Because I would be very interested in the story behind it. Was it a demonstration of the procedure or an actual use it? Was it taken at Gitmo or some other place? Is the picture legitimate?

And why are you so defiant here? It is a reasonable question.

“Demonstrator Maboud Ebrahimzadeh is held down during a simulation of waterboarding outside the Justice Departement in Washington November 5, 2007. The confirmation of Bush nominee Michael Mukasey as attorney general is in jeopardy after his refusal to state whether the interrogation techinque known as waterboarding violates U.S. laws banning torture. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES)”

That technique was used on three people that we know of, one went through all the minor procedures, he lasted an astonishing 30ish seconds, the next day he said Allah had visited him in the night and told him to talk, to make things easier on his brothers.

What kind of technique is this that it could utterly break this man who was unscathed by slaps, sleep depervation, had in his capture been shot three times and fallen from a roof and barely survived, etc

yet in thirty seconds(the maximum withstand time for CIA agents was 10-12 seconds) he broke, and would never resist questioning again?

The CIA agent on ABC said he considered it torture and, while effective, should not be used “we’re better than that”

I appreciate the story, but you have provided no link.

 

[markomalley]

Since nobody bothered to respond to the legal basis for a facility like Gitmo, I’ll try one more post on the thread.

The photo in question was a Reuters photo. Here is a link.

Here is an AP story about the demonstration in question (from the Wash Post).

Some quotes (brief extracts) from the story:

WASHINGTON – Protesters staged a waterboarding Monday outside the Justice Department, calling for a Senate committee to reject attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey because of his reluctance to define the interrogation tactic as torture.

The demonstration came shortly before Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said he would oppose Mukasey during a Senate Judiciary Committee vote set for Tuesday on whether the retired judge should be confirmed to lead the Justice Department.

So this was a demonstration designed to pressure Senate action one way or the other…read on please:

The process was supposed to resemble the process that CIA interrogators are believed to have used on terror detainees until a few years ago.
OK, so the AP/ Wash Post (hardly a friend of the current administration), states that CIA was believed to have used this…until a few years ago (implying not currently used).

** The Pentagon has banned its personnel from using waterboarding. **

So, since Gitmo is a DOD facility, what does all this waterboarding talk have to do with it whatsoever? If the Pentagon has banned its personnel from using the technique, then it isn’t being used at Gitmo (or if it is, the commander of the facility should be court-martialed for violating regulations).

So why, then, are you talking about waterboarding here?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Because I would be very interested in the story behind it. Was it a demonstration of the procedure or an actual use it? Was it taken at Gitmo or some other place? Is the picture legitimate?

And why are you so defiant here? It is a reasonable question.

I didn’t ask angerly, I just wanted to know why it mattered.

If you don’t like that, how about this

Fmr Assistant Attourney General undergoing the technique by Army interiogators, he reported that it was torture, I beleive he was fired

youtube.com/watch?v=EdswfKFt4wo

I appreciate the story, but you have provided no link.

abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext=John%20Kiriakou&from=0&to=9&type=video

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Since nobody bothered to respond to the legal basis for a facility like Gitmo, I’ll try one more post on the thread.

I’m reading up on it, includeing your links, I think the subject of waterboarding is very much relivent to the OP, or at least the spirit of it.

 

[markomalley]

I’m reading up on it, includeing your links, I think the subject of waterboarding is very much relivent to the OP, or at least the spirit of it.

Good. Thanks.

As long as you’re reading, perhaps you could take a look at Camp Delta’s Standard Operating Procedures. Located here:

secure.wikileaks.org/leak/gitmo-sop-2004.doc (the 2004 version)
secure.wikileaks.org/leak/gitmo-sop.pdf (the 2003 version)

 

[RomanCrusader]

Why Gitmo? Because I don’t want the animals locked up there to be on US soil.

 

[Hastrman]

Why Gitmo? Because I don’t want the animals locked up there to be on US soil.

They are not animals. They are human beings.

But they are savages, make no mistake about that.

 

[Dtmccameron]

They are not animals. They are human beings.

But they are savages, make no mistake about that.

Not that any of us have any claim to civility. Though for those of us who have been endowed with this mighty mark, praytell, are you going to civilize us as the white man tamed the red man and all other “savages” he met?

Perhaps, after these long years, he’ll have realized that the only tame man is a dead one. I’m quite certain he’s removed his soul sufficiently to be up to the task.

But I suppose if it’s just a prison, that doesn’t torture people, I’m okay with it. Now why we’re keeping our prisoners somewhere besides our mainland is a little hard for me to understand.

(an idea hit upon me the other evening, ‘Before America can be defended {or it be determined that she should be at all) she must be defined’ What do you think?)

 

[Ender]

Your desire to elevate fetal life to a special status above all others is not compatible with Catholic doctrine. Nor is your consistant rejection of the Magesterium and repeated assertions that your moral authority and doctrinal interpretations carry more weight than the Pope’s.

You seem like a moderately intelligent person; you really should be able to understand my arguments even if you disagree with them. This caricature of my position is unjustified and does you no credit.

Ender

 

[rpp]

You seem like a moderately intelligent person; you really should be able to understand my arguments even if you disagree with them. This caricature of my position is unjustified and does you no credit.

Ender

Sadly, you have made an unsupportable presumption in the first clause of your first sentence.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Sadly, you have made an unsupportable presumption in the first clause of your first sentence.

What a vile personal attack!

 

[Yerusalyim]

Depending on the circumstances I would have no moral objections to the use of waterboarding…and I go back to the ticking bomb scenario. As I understand it this was used on only two or three terrorists…it was not widely used.

Stress positions, noise, light…these I have ZERO problem with.

Most of those remaining in Gitmo live better there than they did in their home countries.

My point earlier about Waterboarding not being shown to be torture was in reference to the legal status of the method, not the Church’s moral consideration of it…which I acknowledge and disagree with under the circumstances I understand it has been used.

 

[rpp]

You seem like a moderately intelligent person; you really should be able to understand my arguments even if you disagree with them. This caricature of my position is unjustified and does you no credit.

Ender

While I think it was intended personally, you may have noticed that this poster has done this to other people as well.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

While I think it was intended personally, you may have noticed that this poster has done this to other people as well.

Seems to me like sour grapes, he uses a plathora of Church documents and cuts to the heart of the argument, just because people don’t like the logical implications of all of their claimes dosen’t mean they are mischaracterized

 

[IvanKaramozov]

First, torture is not taking place at GITMO, and unless you know something I don’t, waterboarding, which was practiced in a VERY LIMITED fashion, has not been shown to be torture in spite of what the Dems yell.

The detainees at GITMO are treated better than most Soldiers in military prisons, and eat and live better than most of their guards.

If people would get out of the way these guys would get the MILITARY TRIBUNAL (not a trial in a civil court). We started with over 600…we’re down to less than 400, the process is working.

Part of the problem with GITMO is many of the governments of the detainees will not accept their citizens back (because they know they are bad actors?)

What is torture?

 

[Contarini]

Those who are there are cold-blooded, trained killers.

Since they haven’t been convicted in any court, how do you know this?

Where would you put them?

They should be treated as criminals or as POWs. Those are the only two categories recognized by civilized countries that abide by moral standards.

They’re in an off-shore facility because that way we don’t have to afford them U.S. constitutional privileges.

Exactly. And you can’t see how obviously smarmy and immoral that is?

You can’t see how this kind of gimmick completely undermines everything good about the United States?

You’ve condemned your own position quite nicely.

Do you want your tax dollars going to our lawyers fighting the ACLU over about 200 cases that would be our court system for decades?

Much better that than going to finance an illegal concentration camp for people who haven’t been convicted of any crime.

That’s why they’re there. They’re ruthless pigs of the worst kind.

And I repeat: you know this how?

Not to speak of the patently dehumanizing and un-Christian practice of comparing human beings (however wicked they may be) to animals. When you speak like this, you discredit your own position far more completely than any “liberal” could ever hope to do.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

What about all of the ones who arent innocent?

Most of the prisoners at GITMO would decapitate you without a second thought,

You don’t know this. And it’s irrelevant anyway.

and you want to defend them? Are you completely stupid?

No, just halfway moral. Moral people do not base their actions toward other human beings on what those other human beings would do, but on what is right. Period.

I understand why someone would hold to the vicious and immoral positions you have expressed. What I don’t understand is why such a person would call themselves a Christian or a “conservative.” I used to think that conservatives were people who believed in absolute moral values. It seems more and more that conservatives are just as relativistic as liberals.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

This is nonsense. They weren’t released because they were tried and found innocent,

Right. They were never tried at all.

they were released because it was determined that they posed little current threat and were of no further intelligence value - as your own source explained.

Same difference for the purposes of the argument. Clearly these people were not vicious murderers who want to behead us all and would do so in a minute if not caged up like animals. In other words, the pro-Gitmo folks are saying things that quite obviously are not true.

Edwin
**