Charges dropped vs. suspect in 2000 USS Cole blast

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

No, but like at Salem people are being tried on unreliable information.

The guy admitted his involvement. If you can prove coercion in that admission, please do. Other than that, I hope you realize that the comparison between witches and terrorists is patently ridiculous one the very face of it.

But no comparison between witches and terrorists was made? The Salem witch trials are infamous not due to the fact that they were about witches, but due to the fact that people were executed based on (obviously) crap evidence. Vic's statement was about the relationship between the type of 'justice' meted out there and the type of 'justice' we are affording people now, not the subject of the trials.

Puhleeze. People in Salem condemned witches purely out of imagination and superstition. Terrorists are condemned because they are real enitites. The best you can do is admit it was a stupid comparison and move on. Your attempt at defending that garbage is pathetic.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

No, but like at Salem people are being tried on unreliable information.

The guy admitted his involvement. If you can prove coercion in that admission, please do. Other than that, I hope you realize that the comparison between witches and terrorists is patently ridiculous one the very face of it.

But no comparison between witches and terrorists was made? The Salem witch trials are infamous not due to the fact that they were about witches, but due to the fact that people were executed based on (obviously) crap evidence. Vic's statement was about the relationship between the type of 'justice' meted out there and the type of 'justice' we are affording people now, not the subject of the trials.

Puhleeze. People in Salem condemned witches purely out of imagination and superstition. Terrorists are condemned because they are real enitites. The best you can do is admit it was a stupid comparison and move on. Your attempt at defending that garbage is pathetic.

Once again for the reading comprehension impaired: The comparison was about the torture and the poor quality of justice it affords. The subject matter of the torture is irrelevant. The Salem witch trials were used due to their widespread infamy and notoriety. The Spanish Inquisition could have been used just as easily even though they were talking about a being equally as nonexistent as witches. The point is not dependent on the subject matter of the trial.

Please don't turn this into another one of your patented TLC descents into pedantry.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

As with he torture is wrong view, the only real sources are witness accounts, hersay and game theory studies all of which are readily available if you wish to look. The problem of course is that a "study" on torture requires a individual to be present during the torture who already knows the information this individual needs to say without the individual knowing the information is already available. The major problem with that, is it would be unethical to torture that individual since we already know the information. So it comes down to a chose your war vet for your side. You have people such as Air Force Col. John Rothrock who psychologically tortured people in Vietnam with success, or Army Col. Stuart Herrington who said that torture is ineffective while in Iraq.

Not to mention, most studies done on the aftermath of torture were done in relation to physical torture, during the early century, in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the French Algerian war, ect. Though it seems when you do find cases of "panic" torture, or torture that is not physically harming and causing trauma to the persons, most people agree that they received information that worked. Since psychological torture is something that is relatively new as a active agenda and not just an on the spot administration as Col. John Rothrock used it I would also love to see studies comparing the two. I am sure you can understand how that is not feasible from any moral perspective.

I would ask though, would you consider wrapping an Arab in an Israel flag torture?

Psychological torture is not new, waterboarding dates back to the Spanish Inquisition, and it was certainly an active agenda then.

It seems like here you are admitting that you don't have any information to back up your assertion that torture involving pain gives qualitatively different information than torture involving panic. So, I really don't see how you can make that claim.

As for what constitutes torture, of course wrapping someone in a flag doesn't do that. I'm not aware of anyone who has made this claim. Some things fall in a gray area, but we were talking about waterboarding, a very old and widely used method of torture. If waterboarding is torture or not isn't really open to debate.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

Both exist, but neither are like they are portrayed on TV.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

What are you talking about you big buffoon, witches and terrorists do exist and under torture I could get you to agree. But they have to exist because the folk so accused admitted as much. The folk who were tortured as witches confessed that they were. How much more evidence that witches exist can you get. And the folk tortured as terrorists also admitted as much. Both confessed both are real and both should be burned at the stake.

Now if you want to argue, torture free of course, that under torture people will admit to what isn't true, for example that they are witches or terrorists when in fact they are not, then perhaps we can agree. And in that case we will see that the point about witches and terrorists is that torture will produce any result you desire, real or not, and that is the essential point, that we don't know if terrorists who admit to being terrorists via torture are any more terrorists than people who admit to being witches are witches which we have reason, these days to suspect they are not.

 

[Thump553]

What part of dismissal without prejudice don't you understand? This is a procedural move only-mandated by the trial judge's refusal-in this one case only-to put all cases on hold until the half-assed trial procedure we currently have is reviewed. The defendant is not released nor has the case gone away.

The OP's characterization is flat out wrong and politically biased.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

As with he torture is wrong view, the only real sources are witness accounts, hersay and game theory studies all of which are readily available if you wish to look. The problem of course is that a "study" on torture requires a individual to be present during the torture who already knows the information this individual needs to say without the individual knowing the information is already available. The major problem with that, is it would be unethical to torture that individual since we already know the information. So it comes down to a chose your war vet for your side. You have people such as Air Force Col. John Rothrock who psychologically tortured people in Vietnam with success, or Army Col. Stuart Herrington who said that torture is ineffective while in Iraq.

Not to mention, most studies done on the aftermath of torture were done in relation to physical torture, during the early century, in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the French Algerian war, ect. Though it seems when you do find cases of "panic" torture, or torture that is not physically harming and causing trauma to the persons, most people agree that they received information that worked. Since psychological torture is something that is relatively new as a active agenda and not just an on the spot administration as Col. John Rothrock used it I would also love to see studies comparing the two. I am sure you can understand how that is not feasible from any moral perspective.

I would ask though, would you consider wrapping an Arab in an Israel flag torture?

Psychological torture is not new, waterboarding dates back to the Spanish Inquisition, and it was certainly an active agenda then.

It seems like here you are admitting that you don't have any information to back up your assertion that torture involving pain gives qualitatively different information than torture involving panic. So, I really don't see how you can make that claim.

As for what constitutes torture, of course wrapping someone in a flag doesn't do that. I'm not aware of anyone who has made this claim. Some things fall in a gray area, but we were talking about waterboarding, a very old and widely used method of torture. If waterboarding is torture or not isn't really open to debate.

No, the active type of torture used was physical until only recently. Yes, psychological has been used, but no state has decided that it would exclusively use phychological torture as its means of extracting information until the United States.


Arabs in Palestine have made the claim regarding the flag and it is actually going through the Israel courts at the moment sadly. Which means if of course the Israel supreme court rules that it is indeed torture you would now be supporting torture. (Not officially of course, I am not implying you are an Israel citizen, but in the broad terms, I imagine it would eventually leak over to the US if US marines were wrapping AQ in American flags as a form of psychological torture)

I say this not to question whether water boarding is torture or not, it is of course, I am sure no one is denying that. I just wonder to what extent do people see it as wrong because they have been told it is wrong. In reality, the wrapping of a prisoner in an Israel flag which is demoralizing, humiliating, and can equal a death sentence back home if he is ever released, or the playing of loud music on an inmate that we keep from allowing to sleep, or water boarding, are all torture. It seems most people pick and chose which one is the "worst" and usually it is decided by the media.

Regarding the claims, I already informed you that there are solider accounts and game theory hypothesis debating both sides. Most of which are readily available if you truly wish to question both sides, as for actual studies verifiable information, I have yet to see any in regards to torture besides translated studies from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and those studies deal with the physical torture of individuals where information was already know. As it stands, torture is not new and has been a necessary evil through history. The definition of torture though it seems is not set by any ideals we have, but by what we are told is right or wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

What are you talking about you big buffoon, witches and terrorists do exist and under torture I could get you to agree. But they have to exist because the folk so accused admitted as much. The folk who were tortured as witches confessed that they were. How much more evidence that witches exist can you get. And the folk tortured as terrorists also admitted as much. Both confessed both are real and both should be burned at the stake.

Now if you want to argue, torture free of course, that under torture people will admit to what isn't true, for example that they are witches or terrorists when in fact they are not, then perhaps we can agree. And in that case we will see that the point about witches and terrorists is that torture will produce any result you desire, real or not, and that is the essential point, that we don't know if terrorists who admit to being terrorists via torture are any more terrorists than people who admit to being witches are witches which we have reason, these days to suspect they are not.

Thank you, Moonbeam.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

What are you talking about you big buffoon, witches and terrorists do exist and under torture I could get you to agree. But they have to exist because the folk so accused admitted as much. The folk who were tortured as witches confessed that they were. How much more evidence that witches exist can you get. And the folk tortured as terrorists also admitted as much. Both confessed both are real and both should be burned at the stake.

Now if you want to argue, torture free of course, that under torture people will admit to what isn't true, for example that they are witches or terrorists when in fact they are not, then perhaps we can agree. And in that case we will see that the point about witches and terrorists is that torture will produce any result you desire, real or not, and that is the essential point, that we don't know if terrorists who admit to being terrorists via torture are any more terrorists than people who admit to being witches are witches which we have reason, these days to suspect they are not.

What I'm talking about, you little twit, is that in the real world, the one you don't seem to exist in along with some of your other cohorts in here, witches of the type tried in Salem don't actually exist. Unfortunately, terrorists are real. In fact, I challenge you and anyone else in here to test that claim. I will put you in a building and have a self-proclaimed witch cast a spell on you while a terrorist is flying a plane loaded with jet fuel directly at the building. Do you think your going to succumb to the pox first or die in a big fireball/building collapse?

I already stated previously that if you can prove there was coercion in the guy's confession and show that it was extracted via torture, please do. Otherwise it's just a pathetic excuse for the usual dolts in here to go stand on their torture soapbox and stroke themselves over their superior moral code.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

No, but like at Salem people are being tried on unreliable information.

If we were pulling there fingernails off and boiling them them alive until they confess..sure. Most torture studies are based on the issue of pain and information, give information to make the pain stop. Water boarding did not cause pain, it caused panic. You can't compare information given under panic to information given when your bones are sticking out of your skin. :roll:

So psychological torture is okay but physical torture isn't? I take your :roll: and raise you :roll::roll:

Yes

Death to Israel.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

No, but like at Salem people are being tried on unreliable information.

If we were pulling there fingernails off and boiling them them alive until they confess..sure. Most torture studies are based on the issue of pain and information, give information to make the pain stop. Water boarding did not cause pain, it caused panic. You can't compare information given under panic to information given when your bones are sticking out of your skin. :roll:

So psychological torture is okay but physical torture isn't? I take your :roll: and raise you :roll::roll:

Yes

Death to Israel.

Your posts are useless dribble consisting of either attacks on people or one line comments you consider "witty", yet you are nothing more than a partisan hack job. For someone who accused people of being blind to everything you sure toe the far left line well.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

What are you talking about you big buffoon, witches and terrorists do exist and under torture I could get you to agree. But they have to exist because the folk so accused admitted as much. The folk who were tortured as witches confessed that they were. How much more evidence that witches exist can you get. And the folk tortured as terrorists also admitted as much. Both confessed both are real and both should be burned at the stake.

Now if you want to argue, torture free of course, that under torture people will admit to what isn't true, for example that they are witches or terrorists when in fact they are not, then perhaps we can agree. And in that case we will see that the point about witches and terrorists is that torture will produce any result you desire, real or not, and that is the essential point, that we don't know if terrorists who admit to being terrorists via torture are any more terrorists than people who admit to being witches are witches which we have reason, these days to suspect they are not.

What I'm talking about, you little twit, is that in the real world, the one you don't seem to exist in along with some of your other cohorts in here, witches of the type tried in Salem don't actually exist. Unfortunately, terrorists are real. In fact, I challenge you and anyone else in here to test that claim. I will put you in a building and have a self-proclaimed witch cast a spell on you while a terrorist is flying a plane loaded with jet fuel directly at the building. Do you think your going to succumb to the pox first or die in a big fireball/building collapse?

I already stated previously that if you can prove there was coercion in the guy's confession and show that it was extracted via torture, please do. Otherwise it's just a pathetic excuse for the usual dolts in here to go stand on their torture soapbox and stroke themselves over their superior moral code.

I believe tests were actually done to prove the witches were witches. I don't remember the details, a bit weak on history you see, but I fancy it was something like putting them in bound in a big cloth bag with 100lb of rocks and throwing them into a river. If they got out by the grace of God that would prove they weren't witches, when of course, all it proved is that witches won't use witchcraft if it helps to cause others to believe in God. But naturally for simple people like yourself with low thresholds of proof, that was all the proof they needed that they were witches.

So rest assured, that while you claim that witches aren't real, you haven't proved your case and the proof you proposed to perform means absolutely nothing. For all I know, it might be a part of the witches covenant that they don't do big buildings. You just think there are no witches but you don't know. And since it's you making the claim it's you that needs to prove it. Good luck. I'm absolutely convinced that an imbecilic pedant like me will be able to demagogue any proof you come up with out to infinity.

Oh my God, I'm having visions of Scotty, in his Scottish brogue, exclaiming, You mean I came billions of miles to tell people that witches don't exist? What a trip! OK now you airheads like Vic and Moonie gather round. 'THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WITCHES'

OK Scotty, thank you so much. You can get back on the Enterprise now and fly the billions of miles back up your ass.

Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!
Mayor
As Mayor of the Munchkin City, In the County of the Land of Oz, I welcome you most regally.
Barrister
But we've got to verify it legally, to see
Mayor
To see?
Barrister
If she
Mayor
If she?
Barrister
Is morally, ethic'lly
Father No.1
Spiritually, physically
Father No. 2
Positively, absolutely
Munchkins
Undeniably and reliably Dead
Coroner
As Coroner I must aver, I thoroughly examined her.
And she's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead.
Mayor
Then this is a day of Independence For all the Munchkins and their descendants
Barrister
If any.
Mayor
Yes, let the joyous news be spread The wicked Old Witch at last id dead!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Title: Charges dropped vs. suspect in 2000 USS Cole blast

Someone needs to tell me why we take prisoners, who have committed acts of war against us, if we're just going to release them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: RichardE
Title: Charges dropped vs. suspect in 2000 USS Cole blast

Someone needs to tell me why we take prisoners, who have committed acts of war against us, if we're just going to release them.

Do you know anything about America and our concept of the presumption of guilt. Nobody releases people who have committed acts of war. And who are they? Those who are tried and convicted, no? Any others taken prisoners are presumed to have committed war crimes, presumed, get it presumed. You suffer a disease called certainty, where you assume anything you life when you are scared. The thought that some guilty person will go free makes you shit in your pants. Great Americans worry they will lock up the wrong guy. I hope some day, for the benefit of your moral edification, it's you.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: RichardE
Title: Charges dropped vs. suspect in 2000 USS Cole blast

Someone needs to tell me why we take prisoners, who have committed acts of war against us, if we're just going to release them.

Ahem

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Crawford dismissed the charges against al-Nashiri without prejudice. That means new charges can be brought again later. He will remain in prison for the time being.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Your posts are useless dribble consisting of either attacks on people or one line comments you consider "witty", yet you are nothing more than a partisan hack job. For someone who accused people of being blind to everything you sure toe the far left line well.

I'm not a sociopath, so of course I toe the left line. I also don't think we should torture people.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: RichardE

Your posts are useless dribble consisting of either attacks on people or one line comments you consider "witty", yet you are nothing more than a partisan hack job. For someone who accused people of being blind to everything you sure toe the far left line well.

I'm not a sociopath, so of course I toe the left line. I also don't think we should torture people.

:laugh: Well, at least you don't hide your partisan hackishness. No, you don't think we should torture people, you just believe in the eradication of an entire state :laugh: So much better.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

What are you talking about you big buffoon, witches and terrorists do exist and under torture I could get you to agree. But they have to exist because the folk so accused admitted as much. The folk who were tortured as witches confessed that they were. How much more evidence that witches exist can you get. And the folk tortured as terrorists also admitted as much. Both confessed both are real and both should be burned at the stake.

Now if you want to argue, torture free of course, that under torture people will admit to what isn't true, for example that they are witches or terrorists when in fact they are not, then perhaps we can agree. And in that case we will see that the point about witches and terrorists is that torture will produce any result you desire, real or not, and that is the essential point, that we don't know if terrorists who admit to being terrorists via torture are any more terrorists than people who admit to being witches are witches which we have reason, these days to suspect they are not.

What I'm talking about, you little twit, is that in the real world, the one you don't seem to exist in along with some of your other cohorts in here, witches of the type tried in Salem don't actually exist. Unfortunately, terrorists are real. In fact, I challenge you and anyone else in here to test that claim. I will put you in a building and have a self-proclaimed witch cast a spell on you while a terrorist is flying a plane loaded with jet fuel directly at the building. Do you think your going to succumb to the pox first or die in a big fireball/building collapse?

I already stated previously that if you can prove there was coercion in the guy's confession and show that it was extracted via torture, please do. Otherwise it's just a pathetic excuse for the usual dolts in here to go stand on their torture soapbox and stroke themselves over their superior moral code.

What you don't seem to get is that torture is so effective that people will admit to something that cannot possibly be true. Does our ability to weed out the supernatural guarantee that we can extract truth?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Well, thanks to the big push to keep those poor people from having water poured on them this guy got his charges dismissed even after admitting to the bombing.

Text

The Pentagon says the senior military judge overseeing terror trials at Guantanamo Bay has dropped charges against a suspect in the 2000 USS Cole bombing.



The military charges against suspected al-Qaida bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri marked the last active war crimes case at Guantanamo Bay.

The legal move by Susan J. Crawford, the top legal authority for military trials at Guantanamo, brings all cases into compliance with President Barack Obama's executive order to halt terrorist court proceedings at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Crawford dismissed the charges against al-Nashiri without prejudice. That means new charges can be brought again later. He will remain in prison for the time being.

"It was her decision, but it reflects the fact that the president has issued an executive order which mandates that the military commissions be halted, pending the outcome of several reviews of our operations down at Guantanamo," Morrell said Thursday night.

The ruling also gives the White House time to review the legal cases of all 245 terror suspects held there and decide whether they should be prosecuted in the U.S. or released to other nations.

Obama was expected to meet with families of Cole and 9/11 victims at the White House on Friday afternoon to announce the move.

Seventeen U.S. sailors died on Oct. 12, 2000, when al-Qaida suicide bombers steered an explosives-laden boat into the Cole, a guided-missile destroyer, as it sat in a Yemen port.

The Pentagon last summer charged al-Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian, with "organizing and directing" the bombing and planned to seek the death penalty in the case.

In his Jan. 22 order, Obama promised to shut down the Guantanamo prison within a year. The order also froze all Guantanamo detainee legal cases pending a three-month review as the Obama administration decides where _ or whether _ to prosecute the suspects who have been held there for years, most without charges.

Two military judges granted Obama's request for a delay in other cases.

But a third military judge, Army Col. James Pohl, defied Obama's order by scheduling a Feb. 9 arraignment for al-Nashiri at Guantanamo. That left the decision on whether to continue to Crawford, whose delay on announcing what she would do prompted widespread concern at the Pentagon that she would refuse to follow orders and allow the court process to continue.

Retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk S. Lippold, the commanding officer of the Cole when it was bombed in Yemen in October 2000, said he will be among family members of Cole and 9/11 victims who are meeting with Obama at the White House on Friday afternoon.

Groups representing victims' families were angered by Obama's order, charging they had waited too long already to see the alleged attackers brought to court.

"I was certainly disappointed with the decision to delay the military commissions process," Lippold, now a defense adviser to Military Families United, said in an interview Thursday night. "We have already waited eight years. Justice delayed is justice denied. We must allow the military commission process to go forward."

Crawford was appointed to her post in 2007 by then-President George W. Bush. She was in the news last month when she said interrogation methods used on one suspect at Guantanamo amounted to torture. The Bush administration had maintained it did not torture.


Last year, al-Nashiri said during a Guantanamo hearing that he confessed to helping plot the Cole bombing.

Now did you read the article yourself or did you get your misinformation fed to you?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Your posts are useless dribble consisting of either attacks on people or one line comments you consider "witty", yet you are nothing more than a partisan hack job.

You'd have more luck addressing those on your team who are also guilty of the charges you charges you make, yourself included.

Originally posted by: RichardE
:laugh: Well, at least you don't hide your partisan hackishness. No, you don't think we should torture people, you just believe in the eradication of an entire state :laugh: So much better.

You have obviously hide your sarcasm meter from yourself.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: RichardE

Your posts are useless dribble consisting of either attacks on people or one line comments you consider "witty", yet you are nothing more than a partisan hack job. For someone who accused people of being blind to everything you sure toe the far left line well.

I'm not a sociopath, so of course I toe the left line. I also don't think we should torture people.

Your first sentence just validated his statement. Good job!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
billious bullshit snipped

Lions, and tigers, and bears, oh MY!

I'm going to repeat this one more time for you since you can't seem to answer a relatively simple question and instead have to dwell on smelly red herrings of an argument:

I already stated previously that if you can prove there was coercion in the guy's confession and show that it was extracted via torture, please do. Otherwise it's just a pathetic excuse for the usual dolts in here to go stand on their torture soapbox and stroke themselves over their superior moral code.

Answer the question instead of trying to tapdance on the head of that pin, Moonie.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
What you don't seem to get is that torture is so effective that people will admit to something that cannot possibly be true. Does our ability to weed out the supernatural guarantee that we can extract truth?

What you, and a couple of others, don't seem to get is that torture has absolutely no relevance to this discussion unless it can be proven al-Nashiri was tortured to elicit his confession.

Can you prove that? If not, then torture has no bearing on this particular topic in the first place.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
billious bullshit snipped

Lions, and tigers, and bears, oh MY!

I'm going to repeat this one more time for you since you can't seem to answer a relatively simple question and instead have to dwell on smelly red herrings of an argument:

I already stated previously that if you can prove there was coercion in the guy's confession and show that it was extracted via torture, please do. Otherwise it's just a pathetic excuse for the usual dolts in here to go stand on their torture soapbox and stroke themselves over their superior moral code.

Answer the question instead of trying to tapdance on the head of that pin, Moonie.

Come on Moonie, you gonna let him dis you like that?:evil:

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What you, and a couple of others, don't seem to get is that torture has absolutely no relevance to this discussion unless it can be proven al-Nashiri was tortured to elicit his confession.

Can you prove that? If not, then torture has no bearing on this particular topic in the first place.

The CIA admits he was tortured:

Last year, al-Nashiri said during a Guantanamo hearing that he confessed to helping plot the Cole bombing only because he was tortured by U.S. interrogators. The CIA has admitted he was among terrorist suspects subjected to waterboarding, which simulates drowning, in 2002 and 2003 while being interrogated in secret CIA prisons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29042139/

Granted, I can't prove his confession was extracted under torture, but I also have yet to see a more reasonable explanation for why the charges against him were dismissed.