[mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] OT - IR jamming

[Aaron Kulkis]

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>> From: Aaron Kulkis
> 
>> Raymond Ingles wrote:
> 
>>>>  >> Waterboarding was prosecuted after WWII???
>>>>  >> If so, then why haven't the opponents publicized it?
>>>>  >  Um... they have.
> [...cites deleted...]
>> Yes, the Japanese treatment of POW's was notorious.
> 
>  So, let's see if I've got this straight. I state that we prosecuted people for
> waterboarding in WWII. You say, "No way!" I say, "Way!" and produce cites showing
> that not only was it prosecuted in WWII, it was also prosecuted in Vietnam.
> 
>  You say, "But the Japanese did all kinds of other bad stuff!"
> 
>  Now I say: So what? Sure, the Japanese did all kinds of bad stuff. But *one* of the
> bad things they did was waterboarding, and we prosecuted them for it specifically.
> More, we've even prosecuted our own soldiers for doing so even more recently. The
> fact that the Japanese did *other* terrible things in WWII is irrelevant. What, are
> you a squid trying to throw up a cloud of ink to hide your getaway?
> 
>  We've prosecuted others when they used waterboarding on our troops. We've
> prosecuted our own troops when they've used it. But now, suddenly, it's all hunky-
> dory when we do it, it's not even torture. Yeah, whatever.
> 
>> What does ANY that have to do with a 45-seconds scare session,
>> which leaves the subject both physically and mentally unharmed?
> 
>  So, you're saying the Japanese soldier who waterboarded our troops *shouldn't*
> have been prosecuted?
> 
>  Now, let me repeat for you something I pointed out to allen:
> 
>  "And it's funny how the people who claim that waterboarding isn't torture
> never seem to volunteer to undergo it themselves, publicly, to demonstrate
> this fact. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has apparently claimed that it's no
> worse than fraternity hazing, but hasn't stepped up to prove it."
> 
>> Usually when someone says "prosecuted after WW2", they're talking
>> about the WW2 war crimes trials in Nurenburg and the like.
> 
>  Which I actually *did*, if you'd read the links. Oh, hell, you never do, so here:
> 
>  "According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.
> 
> The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
> 
> After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war."
> 
>> Waterboarding is something that EVERY graduate of the
>> Escape and Evasion school goes through ... and I know
>> several people who are graduates of that school.
> 
>  Again from one of the articles I linked to:
> 
>  'In the post-Vietnam period, the Navy SEALs and some Army Special Forces used a form of waterboarding with trainees to prepare them to resist interrogation if captured. The waterboarding proved so successful in breaking their will, says one former Navy captain familiar with the practice, "they stopped using it because it hurt morale."'
> 
>  Gonna be hard to confirm or deny since some of the content is classified.
> 
>> This whole debate is nothing more than a deliberate ploy
>> by the hate-America crowd to generate guarantees to the
>> enemy that they should have no fear of fighting against
>> us.
> 
>  Not a single part of that is true. I love my country too much to accept it making
> such a stupid, reprehensible, and self-defeating mistake it's doing now. More, I have
> said, as clearly as humanly possible, that even torture is fine for terrorists - but
> (a) we need a clear policy in place to first make sure that they *are* terrorists,
> and (b) we need to make sure that the benefit we expect to get from the torture
> outweighs the political and diplomatic costs of such action.
> 
>  You and allen never actually debate *me*. You debate some cartoon version of some
> kind of "libral" and seem constitutionally incapable of grasping that there might
> be people who disagree with you and yet have different reasons for doing so than
> you suppose. (Let alone accepting the idea that you might actually be *wrong* once
> in a while like normal humans...)

You're worried about the treatment of three WAR CRIMINALS
who, according to the Geneva Convention, can be executed
on a whim.

Google for the word "dhimmi"

> 
>>  In short, the whole movement is treasonous.
> 
>  Gee, as long as we're casually tossing around accusations of treason, check out
> my .sig:

What else do you call it when someone spends more
time opposing the actions of their own country in
defending itself rather than those who are have
declared war on, and are actively attacking not
only tht country, but all of western civilization.



>  Sincerely,
> 
>  Ray Ingles                                      (313) 227-2317
> 
>  "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
>   or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
>   not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
>    to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Interesting quote, considering how Wilson was as much
of a "progressive" as Teddy and had people thrown in
jail for minor disagreements -- far short of the New
York Times publishing on the front page information
which is classified SECRET and even higher.