Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This is close to my position, yes.

Why do you think that people who cut people's heads off, etc., would be willing to flip for some pussy little beatings and pretend drowning? Why do you liberals keep lobbying for expensive government programs that don't work?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So you agree that McCain's remarks suggesting this will prevent harm to our own troops is a crock?

It is a fact that US and British POWs were treated better by the Germans than were Russian POWs during WWII. The general perception was that this was because we treated their POWs humanely, and the Russians did not.

At least I think that William Holden's character said something like that in "Stalag 17." A fine movie, btw.

So, no, I don't think that it is a crock. I think that it is a form of deterrence analogous to the doctrine of "mutual assured destruction."

Does it matter to the insurgents in Iraq or the Taliban? Almost certainly not. Could it matter in the future in, say, Iran? Or the Balkans? Yes.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Dissent. Tell that Jack Bauer...er Kiefer Sutherland and his Emmy.
These same people would, will and do find fault with us for umpteen other reasons.

Now I get it. You've mistaken tv for real life.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So you agree that McCain's remarks suggesting this will prevent harm to our own troops is a crock?

What, torture will prevent harm to our troops? No fucking way.

Banning torture will prevent harm to our troops? Also, no fucking way.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Lt. Gen. John Kimmel, Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, said:

• I am absolutely convinced [that] no good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that. . . . Moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there.
  
  Some of our most significant successes on the battlefield have been -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically all of them, have accrued from expert interrogators using mixtures of authorized humane interrogation practices in clever ways, that you would hope Americans would use them, to push the envelope within the bookends of legal, moral and ethical, now as further refined by this field manual.
  
  We don't need abusive practices in there. Nothing good will come from them.

;ink

Did he define "abusive"? Because that seems to be a source of debate.

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Bob
It is a fact that US and British POWs were treated better by the Germans than were Russian POWs during WWII. The general perception was that this was because we treated their POWs humanely, and the Russians did not.

At least I think that William Holden's character said something like that in "Stalag 17." A fine movie, btw.

Yes, this is clear from "Hogan's Heroes", although sometimes I confuse TV and real life.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by nononono
Did he define "abusive"? Because that seems to be a source of debate.

The Army just released extensive guidelines about what is and what is not permitted. So, yes. The Army is happy to abide by the Geneva Conventions without the White House's proposed legislation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Why do you think that people who cut people's heads off, etc., would be willing to flip for some pussy little beatings and pretend drowning? Why do you liberals keep lobbying for expensive government programs that don't work?

didn't you see Christmas story? bullies are the easiest to flip.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Lt. Gen. John Kimmel, Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, said:

• I am absolutely convinced [that] no good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that. . . . Moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there.
  
  Some of our most significant successes on the battlefield have been -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically all of them, have accrued from expert interrogators using mixtures of authorized humane interrogation practices in clever ways, that you would hope Americans would use them, to push the envelope within the bookends of legal, moral and ethical, now as further refined by this field manual.
  
  We don't need abusive practices in there. Nothing good will come from them.

;ink

he's Omniscient? is this guy SS's source?

[Montecore]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes, this is clear from "Hogan's Heroes", although sometimes I confuse TV and real life.

A US pilot was in a German POW camp in WWII. The Germans would make the the prisoners walk around in a circle, saying "tick, tock, tick, tock" with every step. The pilot thought this was stupid and, in an act of defiance, would walk around in the circle saying only, "tick, tick, tick, tick."

The Germans pulled him aside. "American schweinhund! Vee have vays to make you tock!"

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes, this is clear from "Hogan's Heroes", although sometimes I confuse TV and real life.

Don't hate Hogan just because he was a New Deal Democrat -- it's beneath you.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Don't hate Hogan just because he was a New Deal Democrat -- it's beneath you.

Was he the freaky sex guy? Or is that someone else?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Army just released extensive guidelines about what is and what is not permitted. So, yes. The Army is happy to abide by the Geneva Conventions without the White House's proposed legislation.

So, since you didn't say so here (sheesh, I was asking for facts, not editorial), did the Lt. Gen. specifically refer to those guidelines, in detail, about which physical or other activities are considered "abusive" (and I repeat, I'm asking about "abusive," as it isn't 100% clear that what is included in that category overlaps seamlessly with "anything outside the Guidelines" and with the Convention).

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
that is so annoying. Somtimes I wonder why I even click on your links. You and Ty think that referencing an entire book is a cite. It is not. You both also seem to think that information from a person that talked to an anonymous source, is a cite. It is not. A reference to someone elses opion is not a cite - unless of course you are arguing about someone's opinion and not a fact. A person alleging that somone else said somthing is only a cite, if the person who said it, confirms they said it.

If a person from the FBI or Army (and from a section that does interrogations not someone from the transportation division) is on record saying they don't need to use torture or tough interrogation techniques I would be really interested in that. But absent that, don't tell me you have a cite.

An army interrogator.

ETA: Another army interrogator.

Both served in Iraq. One just reupped, the other is dealing with PTSD.

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Bob
Don't hate Hogan just because he was a New Deal Democrat -- it's beneath you.

Hell, Bob Crane practically invented the mail-order porn racket.