US Used Communist Chinese Torture Methods
Remember the days when we used to talk about how evil communist regimes were because they tortured people? Well, it turns out that these methods are the basis for what became our modus operandi, embraced in 2002 without any dissent from the Bush administration or member of Congress. Our government approved gruesome interrogation techniques without ever looking to see where they came from.
According to several former top officials involved in the discussions seven years ago, they did not know that the military training program, called SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, had been created decades earlier to give American pilots and soldiers a sample of the torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War, methods that had wrung false confessions from Americans.
Top officials who approved torture were clueless that waterboarding was prosecuted by the United States in war crime trials after Word War II, and was historically used by despotic regimes such as Pol Pot in Cambodia and the Spanish Inquisition. They didn’t know that SERE program trainers warned that these methods were ineffective. And the former military psychologist who persuaded them to do this never conducted a single interrogation. One former CIA official says it’s “a perfect storm of ignorance and enthusiasm.”
Philip D. Zelikow, who worked on interrogation issues as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2005 and 2006, said the flawed decision-making badly served Mr. Bush and the country.
“Competent staff work could have quickly canvassed relevant history, insights from the best law enforcement and military interrogators, and lessons from the painful British and Israeli experience,” Mr. Zelikow said.
What we’ve done here, as the New York Times story says, is “blur the moral distinction between terrorists and the Americans who hunted them.” Released memos, which show that two suspects were waterboarded 266 times, also reveal that CIA interrogators were ordered to torture one of the captives even though they believed he had no new information to reveal.
A little research on the origin of those methods would have given reason for doubt. Government studies in the 1950s found that Chinese Communist interrogators had produced false confessions from captured American pilots not with some kind of sinister “brainwashing” but with crude tactics: shackling the Americans to force them to stand for hours, keeping them in cold cells, disrupting their sleep and limiting access to food and hygiene.
“The Communists do not look upon these assaults as ‘torture,’ ” one 1956 study concluded. “But all of them produce great discomfort, and lead to serious disturbances of many bodily processes; there is no reason to differentiate them from any other form of torture.”
Daniel J. Baumgartner, the Air Force Lt. Colonel who oversaw the SERE training, warned that physical pressure was “less reliable” than other interrogation methods, but his memo went to the Defense Department, not the CIA. But shouldn’t the Defense Department have cared about this? And John Yoo, the Justice Department official who wrote the August 2002 memo approving torture, was focused on proving that the president’s wartime powers allowed for harsh interrogations. Yoo consulted closely with Cheney advisor David Addington, and the VP strongly endorsed the program. And so the CIA had the full support of the White House to do as it wished.
And that means we were in a league with Pol Pot and the Spanish Inquisition.
Yah, but every 187th time, you get some REAL information.
average james Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Hahahaha, yah 4, man it’s laugh or cry with this sh#t isn’t it. Once again, it is about right and wrong, good guys and bad guys. The line got blurred, let’s get back in focus.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
This is also why John McCain knows a thing or two how it all works.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
What’s really pathetic about all this is the fact that the NYPD secures confessions every day of the week without resorting to methods that the incompetents of the Bush regime used to no effect, except to disgrace our country and dishonor the people fighting in the front lines.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
ROCKY,
Comparing interrogation techniques used on terrorists to those used on American citizens?
Good job. Keep it coming.
…that the incompetents of the Bush regime used to no effect
Actually, it’s been proven by many, many, many, MANY people the techniques were effective.
OldLefty Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
It seems that the experts have proven the opposite.
In 2006, former U.S. Army psychiatrist Maj. Charles Burney told investigators that interrogators at Gitmo were under “pressure” to produce evidence of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
OLD LEFTY,
I don’t think we’re talking about finding a link between Al Queda and Iraq…that has been widely disproved.
I’m saying that, even through the obviously spectacular and excessive torture conducted…there are reports that information was received that saved lives.
OldLefty Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
That’s what former U.S. Army psychiatrist Maj. Charles Burney told investigators.
I think they were always looking for justification for invading Iraq.
I also don’t see any evidence to suggest that they got real information, except for the word of those who are trying to justify it.
EricG Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
It’s been proven to your biased and slanted satisfaction. There is not a shred of real evidence to prove that. In fact all the credible evidence point the other way.
So why exactly are you so intent on not learning the truth?
Is it perhaps it hurts? Stings a little?
maybe you are seeing that you were wrong, and that’s good. because you are.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
ERIC,
I think i like the mature and think-before-you-type ERIC from yesterday a bit better.
All I’m saying is there have been a number of people who have said these interrogation techniques were effective. What did you pin your hat on before the memos were released? Oh, yeah??? Someone else just saying it was true?
But you sure didn’t wait until solid proof was provided then, did you? What’s the word here? Oh, yeah…hypocrite.
EricG Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Oh yeah, hypocrite.
It doesn’t work on me. that game. I am a hypocrite. I’m also a prick.
Just to be clear.
And I know exactly what your saying. But all the people who said that are like you … where they want it to be true. They want it so bad that they are willing to dismiss all other evidence.
I am not. If you can PROVE that it works, with SCIENCE and not vague opinion then maybe I’ll switch sides. I’m one of those. If you show me data that I can repeat and meets scientific standards … then I’ll come with.
I guess that’s hypocrisy! Yeah!
(Thinking before talking / typing is over rated.)
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
ERIC,
I don’t remember you exercising any kind of restraint when the discussion of torture first came to the fore-front. If my memory serves…you jumped on the bandwagon pretty quickly.
Up until a couple of days ago…there was no “proof” …other than someone saying it was true…that torture was occurring. Where was your imposed “prove it with science” self-control then?
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
ALAN,
Have you heard of the term “beating a dead horse”???
Sarah Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I think it’s been changed to “waterboarding a dead horse.”
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
she shoots! she scores!!!
nicely done, SARAH
EricG Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
have you heard the term ’sore loser’?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
????
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
But shouldn’t the Defense Department have cared about this?
There’s no evidence to suggest the DoD didn’t care about this. They were not the interrogators.
EricG Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
There is also no evidence of them taking action. They are responsible for this much. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean anything. Could be either way.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
ERIC,
It’s the DoD’s responsibility to “police” the other agencies, now? What’s next…the FBI? the DoI?
yawn…
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Does the guy doing the pouring look a little like Joe the Dumber Plumber?
Maybe it just looks symbolic of what Joe did to the McCain campaign.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
2 for 2
:)
average james Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Sarah you are on a roll.
Sometimes it seems as if Alan works for
“The department of Redundancy department”.
On a serious note,
It seems to me irrelevant and a distraction, whether or not these techniques work.
Torture is wrong, no amount of valuable intel garnered from it changes that. Torture at any time for any reason is wrong. No amount of obfuscation will diminish this reality.
Sarah Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Thankyou, thankyouverymuch. No applause, please, just throw money– the paper kind.
average james Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Bravo !!
I’d throw it if I had any. I’m on my way to go make some now. Check back in in a couple of days.
Take gare gang.
average james Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
That would be “care”, take “care”.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
[...] • Alan discusses why America should hold itself to a higher standard than countries that torture. [...]
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Having spent time in combat during the Vietnam conflict I can honestly say that our torture of enemy combatants can only put today’s front line troops in greater danger if captured.
But, how much greater can that danger be since friends of those enemy combatants have been known to behead captured US military personnel? If given the choice I’d pick water boarding.
Kregg Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
K: Bernie, thank you for your service. And, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement because whether we tortured or not our captives have been and will be beheaded and treated far worse than we treat our prisoners.
K; Hows this as a new and improved method of interrogation: “Achmid, we are a democratic country full of compassion but we need to get some info from you so we will give you a choice – either beheading or water boarding”. The only problem with a prisoner choosing beheading would be that the screamers on this board couldn’t decry “ONE MAN BEHEADED 183 TIMES!!!!”
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Kregg,
I believe you to be a sincere Christian. Is there really nothing in Christian doctrine that says we should not torture God’s children?
Two adults of the same sex marrying, bad.
Torturing our fellow man, OK.
Really?
Kregg Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Um said: I believe you to be a sincere Christian. Is there really nothing in Christian doctrine that says we should not torture God’s children?
K: Um, I tend to think of torture as something that harms a recipient physically and permanently and I don’t see water boarding as meeting those standards. From what I”ve read you reflexively THINK you’re going to die – but you don’t. Waterboarding triggers the bodies inbuilt terror reaction to drowing but apparently the recipient recovers fully.
K: While I’d love to sit around and chat with an enemy combatant as to why he thinks the way he does, and would love to convert him to helping us out by the shear force of my eloquent and cogent arguments I realize it ain’t likely to happen. So, if having to choose between allowing thousands of pointless deaths or causing a captured enemy combatant some temporary discomfort I’m afraid I’d choose to water board him.
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
So it isn’t that you believe torture is excusable, it is that you believe waterboarding is not torture?
What about things which cause severe pain, but not permanent damage (certain drugs, for example).
Kregg Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Um said: So it isn’t that you believe torture is excusable, it is that you believe waterboarding is not torture?
K: We’ve already noted that there are several definitions of ‘torture’ – including the differences in the UN and the Geneva treaties. I would call water boarding an extreme interrogation method and would reserve it for those I couldn’t get vital info out of any other way. By vital I mean life-saving information. I wouldn’t use it to learn what day of the month Thanksgiving is celebrated in the Arab world.
U: What about things which cause severe pain, but not permanent damage (certain drugs, for example).
K: I’d have to know more about such drugs but if they left no permanent damage and I was responsible for the safety of thousands of people’s lives I’d certainly consider them.
K: Actually, after whassizname was ‘boarded several times you’d think they’d kind of just do a ‘virtual technique’ something like: “Achmed, you know its gonna hurt and you know you’re gonna tell us what you know about “X” so lets just pretend and save time and water. Imagine us hosing you, you reacting, us drying your face, and you telling us what you know. So, tell us about “X” ’cause we got a softball game we got to get to…” Much easier…
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
So what is the limit in the Kregg torture doctrine.
If you did think you were going to save thousands of lives by torturing a bad guy, would there be limits?
Would techniques that left permanent damage be on the table? Would there be any limit to those techniques, if you thought you were going to save thousands of lives by extracting information from him?
Kregg Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
UM: So what is the limit in the Kregg torture doctrine. If you did think you were going to save thousands of lives by torturing a bad guy, would there be limits?
K: Who knows until they are confronted with the issue? The images of live humans jumping from hundreds of feet up in the Twin Towers to splatter their lives and bodies into bloody goo on the pavement are still on my mind. How far would YOU go to prevent such a recurrance of such an act?
K: Military officers are guided by national policy as to their limits. Are you asking me as a civilian or what I’d condone if I was a military interrogator?
U: Would techniques that left permanent damage be on the table? Would there be any limit to those techniques, if you thought you were going to save thousands of lives by extracting information from him?
K: Obviously I would be guided by national policy and command from higher up the food chaing if I was military and would have to abide by those rules.
K: You might not want to ask me what I’d be willing to do if I had my hands on a guy who’d kidnapped and hid my daughter somewhere, however. As a non-parent you’d never understand… ;-)
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Another poll:
I know this question has been asked before, but I don’t remember seeing a response:
What would you be willing to do in order to save an American life? i.e. You know the detainee has valuable information about an imminent attack on US soil…what would you be willing to do to save your fellow Americans?
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
What would you be willing to do in order to save an American life? i.e. You know the detainee has valuable information about an imminent attack on US soil…what would you be willing to do to save your fellow Americans?
Give him stale coffee, but ONLY if it is offered with a particularly tasty doughnut.
You?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Whatever it took…
Your answer, although overtly facetious, is entirely indicative of the typcial response. Libs accused the cons of not having an answer to the economic issues (cons only whine about what the Obama administration is doing/not doing, but offer no alternatives).
Same in this case, I’m afraid…only in reverse.
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Jared, I have said many times I would not permit any torture. I was teasing you because you asked such a wide open question w/o defining any criteria, or stating your own position.
I would not torture my fellow man. Period.
Definitions we have used for torture for a long time are good enough for me.
I don’t trust the information I would extract, and I feel it an immoral line that should not be crossed.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
UM CARA,
I didn’t ask you what you thought of torture…I asked what would you do?
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I asked what would you do?
I would make sure this hypothetical terrorist got in front of a professional interrogator, pronto!
The interrogator would be guided by US policy, which has meant torture is off limits (Up until Cheney changed the rule. I would not put Cheney in charge of anything, by the way.)
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
UM CARA,
Once again…the question was “what would you be willing to do to save American lives?”
But you fall back on US Policy. Which pretty much limits your actions to “pretty please”.
I whole-heartedly believe that, despite your ahborrance toward torture…if YOU were faced with the very real possibility of Americans being killed, there’s not a person on this site who would hold back. Not a one. Unless, of course, you care a bit more about how you’d look in the eyes of the international community than you would about saving your fellow Americans.
My point is: it’s real easy to be an armchair quarterback…isn’t it? But sit in the seat for a while…have the lives of 250M Americans in your hands…feel the pressure of that…and it’d be quite a different story.
I wonder…honestly wonder, if another attack had occurred on US soil, would libs be asking “why didn’t we press harder to get the information?”
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Once again…the question was “what would you be willing to do to save American lives?
I’m TELLING you, I would get someone who knew how to conduct an interrogation to try and extract the information.
Unless, of course, you care a bit more about how you’d look in the eyes of the international community than you would about saving your fellow Americans.
I flat out think torture is wrong. It has nothing to do with how I look to the international community, it has to do with how I look at myself in the mirror.
I don’t think torture is even effective. I’ve said it a million times, I would absolutley tell my interrogator anything he wanted to hear in order to get him to stop torturing me.
McCain made an anti American ‘confession’ (after heroic resistance) after being tortured.
Do you think it was true?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
UM CARA,
Obama’s own Intelligence Director has gone on record saying these tactics were effective and information was received that prevented attacks on the US.
So, you’re saying (let me know if I’m off base here):
You would NOT engage in these extreme interrogation tactics…even if you knew it could save American lives.
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 pm
I would not torture anyone. Period.
I would not trust the info.
It is a moral line that should not be crossed.
(but I think this is ground we have already covered)
trees are people too Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:56 pm
I would not torture anyone period.
I define torture thusly, the infliction of unbearable pain as a direct result of organic tissue damage that causes extreme suffering and which results in permanent organic damage.
Stun guns are out, hanging from extremities is out, binding and beating is out, waterboarding is on the table as I do not consider it within the definition of torture.
I would use intense interrogation techniques.
I would deprive them of sleep, disorient them and subject them to unwanted stimulation, and I would play Frosty’s music loud and continuously.
This would be a difficult job and those who are doing it should be carefully monitored for stress disorder.
I would determine if the information I had obtained was accurate and valuable based on corroborating evidence from other suspects and the consistent nature of the statements received based on multiple interviews with the suspect.
If the statements were inconsistent and contradictory I would consider them of little or no value.
I would also place undercover agents among them (provided we had them) posing as fellow detainees in an attempt to gain the trust and confidence of these suspected terrorists.
I would also attempt to befriend and communicate with some, a control group consisting of up to half of the population of detainees, and I would weigh the results to see what yielded the best results.
Everything would be on the table concerning verbal communication, including theologically based conversations.
Kregg Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Play Barry Manilow records full blast 24/7…
OldLefty Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Remember the group of World War II veterans who did interrogating of Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt, who came out against torture?
“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess.
“During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone,” said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. “We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”
As for this ticking time bomb scenario, if it REALLY happens and the agent REALLY thinks torture is the only answer, he’ll do it, and probably worry about the law later, and if he has a good case be exonerated, if there is reasonable evidence.
But to do it as standard practice, and possibly to obtain information you wish for….is REALLY bad
We hanged people for this at Nuremberg.
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
For the record, I’m with Lefty on this, lest my coffee and doughnut joke left any doubt.
No torture, no how, and the definitions that we have used for torture for a long time are good enough for me (and that includes waterboarding).
Kregg Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Lefty said: As for this ticking time bomb scenario, if it REALLY happens and the agent REALLY thinks torture is the only answer, he’ll do it, and probably worry about the law later, and if he has a good case be exonerated, if there is reasonable evidence.
K: Lefty, we don’t know that this exact scenario wasn’t what these guys were up against. Thats why we should place everything before the American public so that we can learn WHAT was gained and quit slamming Cheney for asking that it be done.
L: But to do it as standard practice, and possibly to obtain information you wish for….is REALLY bad
We hanged people for this at Nuremberg.
K: How does an interrogator know whether THIS particular plot or THAT particular plot would fit your ‘extreme need’ scenario until they interrogate an obviously resistive prisoner?
OldLefty Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
There is no evidence that I know of.
As for:
How does an interrogator know whether THIS particular plot or THAT particular plot would fit your ‘extreme need’ scenario until they interrogate an obviously resistive prisoner?
They should have evidence. We don’t even know who many of these people are don’t forget many were turned over to private contractors like CACI, who are not subject Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Matthew Alexander who led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 200 6said, .in the Wash Post, “ The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.”
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. … It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.”
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
OLD LEFTY,
The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001
First of all…I’d really like to see what he’s basing his statement on…
Secondly, you’re using someone’s conjecture as fodder for your argument? so sad…
Kregg Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Lefty: They should have evidence. We don’t even know who many of these people are don’t forget many were turned over to private contractors like CACI, who are not subject Uniform Code of Military Justice.
K: So, a tip comes in and the torturers sit around sipping coffee trying to decide which prisoner they’ll torture to get info? “Hey, lets do Achmed from Syria, he’s be off since last Monday”. “But, this tips from Yemen…” “So, we got some extra water bottles in this last week and have to use them up so lets do ‘em all”…?
K: You’ve got to give them credit for knowing more than you and I about what they were doing, Lefty.
L: Matthew Alexander who led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 200 6said, .in the Wash Post, “ The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.”
K: If the number will never be known then how can he make that statement? Jihadists came from all over to fight the great Satan closer to home than a one way trip to NY would cost – so they went to Iraq. To presume their motives were to avenge US torture policy is a bit of a stretch I think. IF that were the case wouldn’t the anti-war folks who INFORMED them of our policy and posted pics of Abu Ghrab be responsible for the deaths of those soldiers lost?
L: I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. … It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.”
K: Then the whistle blowers at Abu Ghrab should be prosecuted for causing all those military deaths…
OldLefty Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
(I really don’t know where I’m supposed to reply, here)
“First of all…I’d really like to see what he’s basing his statement on”
………………………….
He led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006.
“using someone’s conjecture as fodder for your argument?”??
……………………………
I think that the people who know, who see what has been going on, have been screaming out to us.
That’s why we had: Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity (VIPS) and
Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, in 2004,
a group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush has damaged America’s national security and should be defeated in November.
Responsible people who knew what was going on have been begging us to step up to the plate.
Well, Good Night Everyone.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
OLD LEFTY,
Leading an intel unit doesn’t qualify him to make that statement…it was just ridiculous supposition. IMO
OldLefty Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Kregg,
I Really have to go now, but,
I’m afraid, they were simply told to keep at people till you get confessions, from those who maybe most likely to give them.
As for “If the number will never be known then how can he make that statement” I think this guy should have a darn good idea. It’s not just to To presume their motives were to avenge US torture policy, but it confirms for them what their recruiters tell them about us against Islam.
From what I understand, those posted pics of Abu Ghrab, were already all over the place.
And I think that those who turned away from the fight against terrorism to invade Iraq, and those who set the policy should be prosecuted for causing all those military deaths…(and the civilian ones as well.)
Kregg Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
Lefty: I’m afraid, they were simply told to keep at people till you get confessions, from those who maybe most likely to give them.
K: I’m sure thats what you’ve been told, Lefty, but do you know it as fact? To sit on this board and presume our military and our president to be stupider than we are – is, well, stupid. I suspect the military treated interrogations with the discipline and order in which it handles its other duties and am willing to wait for the FACTS to come – if they ever do – before condemning the techniques OR the people who used them.
L: As for “If the number will never be known then how can he make that statement” I think this guy should have a darn good idea. It’s not just to To presume their motives were to avenge US torture policy, but it confirms for them what their recruiters tell them about us against Islam.
From what I understand, those posted pics of Abu Ghrab, were already all over the place.
K: The fact remains that if all those jihadists were inflamed by the Abu Ghrab pics then the people who posted them and spread them around the world are responsible for the deaths of innocent American soldiers and ought to be prosecuted. Don’t you agree?
L: And I think that those who turned away from the fight against terrorism to invade Iraq, and those who set the policy should be prosecuted for causing all those military deaths…(and the civilian ones as well.)
K: I disagree that invading Iraq was a ‘turning away from the fight against terrorism”. Saddam had tried to assassinate Bush #1 and that demanded a response. He was running training schools for terrorists just south of Baghdad, he was financing terrorism. Good place to start – especially when doing so gives us a good place from which to invade Iran if that becomes necessary.
OldLefty Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Quick reply to JaredfromTexas,
“Leading an intel unit doesn’t qualify him to make that statement…it was just ridiculous supposition. IMO”
…………………………………………..
Matthew Alexander, led an interrogations team, not just an intel unit. That alone qualifies him more than those who just sit around here opining, or those who said we would be greeted as liberators.
I really think that many from the Bush administration know business leaders and dictators, but REALLY had no idea about the people.
Anyone familiar with the region would have told you there would be blowback and an insurgency, which again is why we had….. Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity (VIPS) and Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, all for Kerry, in 04 because THEY knew we were not acting in the best interests of the US.
Going away for a few days …so have a good weekend everyone.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
OLD LEFTY,
Still, being in charge of an interrogation unit does qualify him to make such an inflammatory statement.
On what does he base his findings? The word of the guys he’s interrogating?
I thought torture tactics don’t produce reliable information? Or…is it that torture doesn’t produce reliable information when it goes against your arguments?
Anyone familiar with the region would have told you there would be blowback and an insurgency
Based on what? Historical precedence? You’re grasping for straws here, OLD LEFTY…and it doesn’t make you look good.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
“”While I’d love to sit around and chat with an enemy combatant as to why he thinks the way he does, and would love to convert him to helping us out by the shear force of my eloquent and cogent arguments I realize it ain’t likely to happen….”‘
Indeed.
Firstly, who says they are the ‘enemy’? It’s been shown that Arabs were ‘turned in’ for the reward money…
Secondly, when have you argued with ‘eloquence’, lol?
Is there ANOTHER site where you actuallly think before you post?
Kregg Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Frosty said: Firstly, who says they are the ‘enemy’? It’s been shown that Arabs were ‘turned in’ for the reward money…
K: I think it would be a good idea to determine the value of the interrogatee before working him over.
F: Secondly, when have you argued with ‘eloquence’, lol?
K: Haven’t needed too much of it with you so I”ve been keeping it in reserve…;-)
F: Is there ANOTHER site where you actuallly think before you post?
K: No, I pretty much stay here with the non-thinkers…
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Don’t worry, I save your best lines…
One day, you may want to publish a retrospective of your ideas/analogies/bigotry/refusal to learn…
…I can help
Kregg Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 am
Good, then remember this one because it’s my best – “in the end, Christ simply judges whether you’ve accepted the free gift of salvation”. Write that one down and remember it, Frostman. ;-)
Kregg Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Frosty, I see you got rid of the “stupid redneck hick” look on your icon. Actually I think it looks better than the ‘rose colored glasses NY thug” look… ;-)
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:26 pm
McFROSTY,
It’s been shown that Arabs were ‘turned in’ for the reward money…
Spin.
I would say some were turned in for the ransom money, and without just cause. But implying all were wrongly detained is no good…I guess we’ll find out when habeaus corpus resumes (for non-US citizens by the way).
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I guess we’ll find out when habeaus corpus resumes (for non-US citizens by the way).
You say that as if it were a bad thing, right after acknowledging that there are folks there because they were turned in for cash, even though they are innocent.
Did I read that right? Or are you in fact glad that a process will be established to determine which detainees should be set free?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
UM CARA,
I don’t think they should clog the US justice system. We should send them back to their home-country…with the evidence we’ve gleaned…and they should be tried there.
Habeaus Corpus is a right afforded US citizens…not non-US citizens.
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
So you don’t think we should be holding anybody? They should all be immediately released to their home countries?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
It has to do with the fact that some ARE innocent, you stupid redneck hick.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
McFROSTY,
Once again…do you even read the entire thread before opening your stupid canuck mouth?
you stupid redneck hick.
Racist…pure and simple. “You must be very proud…”
Kregg Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
Frosty said: It has to do with the fact that some ARE innocent, you stupid redneck hick.
K: Uh, look Frosty, with that new pic icon of you in the cowboy hat and shades lighting up a ’stick I think I’d be pretty careful about who you call a ’stupid redneck hick”. Ya’ know what I’m sayin’? ;-)
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Again, putting myself in the next man’s shoes…I would rather see 100 ‘terrorists’ sent home, than see one innocent man hanged.
That’s how I feel. Those that agree with me are legion…
You don’t know WHO you are ‘torturing’!?
The US is clearly afraid to find out.
And THAT, my flag waving in his arm-chair friend, is the harsh reality.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 pm
McFROSTY,
You don’t know WHO you are ‘torturing’!?
Sure we did…
The US is clearly afraid to find out.
As evidenced by?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
as evidenced by the fact that amongst the few who HAVE been judged, there have been innocents…as evidenced by the fact that warlords have ADMITTED that the rewards offered with your tax dollars were often too much to resist…
…as evidenced by the fact that you don’t know who’s guilty until you have had a TRIAL!!!
Jesus h Christ
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:55 pm
McFROSTY,
So…we’re NOT afraid to find out…because there have been trials…or were you not paying attention? (Jesus h Christ)
And what does warlords giving up people for money have to do with your statement that the US is afraid to find out who these people are?
Kregg Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
Frosty said: I would rather see 100 ‘terrorists’ sent home, than see one innocent man hanged.
K: 1. We’re not hanging anyone. We are holding them.
K: 2. I’d rather see 100 ‘terrorists’ held than see one American soldier killed because we’d released them.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
“”I would say some were turned in for the ransom money, and without just cause.”"
!!!???
And so you’re ‘OK’ with a few innocents being swept under the carpet??
I can’t believe some things I hear from you Yanks, I really cannot….
Please, please, let’s build that wall, and keep you out…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
McFROSTY,
So, I agreed with you that some people have been given up for the money…and that makes me “OK” with it?
Point is, we don’t know who these people are without conducting an investigation. You cannot have a trial with an investigation…correct?
You’re a bit off your game today…it’s sad to watch…
sbj Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 am
Haha! What side do I get to paint the graffiti on? I have bricks from the Berlin Wall?
Kregg Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:28 am
Frosty: Please, please, let’s build that wall, and keep you out…
K: 1. You Canucks couldn’t scrape up the dough to do it so we’d have to carry your sorry butts on such a project.
K: 2. You’d keep sending your late term abortion and difficult medical cases down here anyway
K; 3. Your depressed pilots with a death wish would continue to simply fly over any wall
K: It would be cheaper, easier, and certainly faster to simply invade and annex you. And, we’d be back in time for dinner…
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Wow, that’s just so wrong. Waterboarding is CLEARLY torture, and the fact that the previous administration even approved of that type of stuff is just nasty, not to mention a horrible misrepresentation of American values. Add the fact that those torture techniques DON’T WORK, and you’ve got some downright filth here.
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
UM CARA,
That is correct. I don’t think GTMO was the answer at all…their home country should be prosecuting these individuals…not the US.
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Interesting perspective, I think you are the first to suggest it.
Personally, I would bring people to US justice system.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
UM CARA,
I vehmently disagree…they have no rights in the US judicial system as they are not US citizens.
They should not be tried in the US. IMO.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
what the f are you talking about?
but you are happy to hold ‘them’ without trial?
…maybe you SHOULD leave the union, Jared, you seem to have forgotten, or perhaps have never even known what the US was meant to stand for…
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
We try folks from other countries all the time. Remember Noreiga?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I’ve been saving travel advice for you bitter Yanks that want to abandon their country’s principles, lol…
here’s a list:
1) 甘肃省
2) Чадан,
3) Calgary
4) P’yŏngyang,
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:03 pm
McFROSTY,
What the “f” are YOU talking about?
If you would take the time to read the damn posts before you spout off…you would see that I said the US should NOT have had gitmo…and the detainees should have been prosecuted by their home countries.
YOU…a canuck…are trying to educate ME on the values of America?
“guffaw!” You’re a joke…
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Perhaps I am, lol…but you are a hypocrit, and that doen’t make ANYONE laugh…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:15 pm
McFROSTY,
I’m a hypocrite, now? How so? hmmm?
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
what the f are you talking about?
He is saying that they don’t have the rights afforded a US citizen.
Keep up.
but you are happy to hold ‘them’ without trial?
Nope. That’s no good either. We should give ‘em a fair trial and then shoot them via firing squad.
maybe you SHOULD leave the union
Not for nothin’, but maybe you should JOIN the UNion before decidin’ who should leave it.
I’m not sayin’. I’m just sayin’.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:06 pm
“He is saying that they don’t have the rights afforded a US citizen.”‘
Than you also don’t have the ‘right’ to hold them indefinitly without charge…that goes against everything that you teach your children about the US.
You must be very proud.
Well, those “rights’ you are so proud of have been whittled away over the last 8 years, at least we can agree that you must be thankful that the GOP has been voted out of power.
again, you have admitted that at least SOME of the detainees being held without any “rights”, UN, or Geneva protection are not guilty.
How do you reconcile that with your carp about the “best country in the world”, lol.
Not by half, mate, not by half.
It’s great if you’re not gay/female/black/brown/Arab/Sikh/buddhist/peaceful…
Lol, and listen to PINO…swooping in with his 2 cents worth – “We should give ‘em a fair trial and then shoot them via firing squad.”
You, sir, are a credit to your nation. You must be very proud.
I hope you don’t mind that I’m going to (again) quote you as an example of just how ridiculous some Americans can be…
LMAO
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
McFROSTY,
don’t worry…I’ve been using you as an example of how delusional and anti-amercian Candadians are…
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Except that we’re mostly only “anti stupid uneducated redneck Yanks who think “culture” is Nascar and Disney…and science and history is the ‘bible’ and good TV is “Pimp my Crib”…
You may quote me on that…
I quote you quite a bit, actually Jared. People don’t believe me until I send them here.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 pm
McFROSTY,
Well, that’s good…that way your buddies will see that we’re not all “stupid uneducated redneck Yanks who think “culture” is Nascar and Disney…and science and history is the ‘bible’ and good TV is “Pimp my Crib.”
Kregg Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Frosty: Than you also don’t have the ‘right’ to hold them indefinitly without charge…that goes against everything that you teach your children about the US.
K: Don’t be ignorant. Certainly we have the right to hold them indefinitely – we caught ‘em fair and square on the battlefield. We can hold them until the conflict is over. Works for me…
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 pm
By the way, I have decided that UN treaties are not worth the paper they are printed on. Further, I suspect that UN treaties are not legal documents in an American Court.
Therefore, if we do not have a legal restriction on using techniques that admittedly cause pain, fear and what not, we should use them for their intended purpose. The saving of lives.
If, after that, sicko wacko folks continue to inflict pain, then those techniques shift from techniques into torture. And THAT is wrong.
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
If, after that, sicko wacko folks continue to inflict pain, then those techniques shift from techniques into torture.
No, it shifts into torture which you do not support, it was always torture, even when you were using it to extract information.
Kregg Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Um, if we water board our troops to prepare them for what might happen if they are captured is that also torture – or is it training?
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Than you also don’t have the ‘right’ to hold them indefinitly without charge…
Which is what I agreed too. Charge ‘em, try ‘em and shoot ‘em.
Lol
gawd. more of this. i suspect you suck as a whatever you do during your “day” job as you do at this.
“We should give ‘em a fair trial and then shoot them via firing squad.”
Is a reference to a reference made by the Good Govna of the Great State of Illinois.
Again, try to keep up.
Dum a$$
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
“”gawd. more of this. i suspect you suck as a whatever you do during your “day” job as you do at this.”‘
:(
I suck at my job?
Jeez. That hurts, it really does.
Lol
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
“”Which is what I agreed too. Charge ‘em, try ‘em and shoot ‘em.”‘
You’re a sick puppy, mate.
Thank “god” you and you’re ilk are out of power, probably for good.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
“”By the way, I have decided that UN treaties are not worth the paper they are printed on. Further, I suspect that UN treaties are not legal documents in an American Court.”‘
Actually, PITO, as someone who has spent time on native reserves in Washington state, neither are US ‘treaties’…
“” we should use (torture) for (its) intended purpose. The saving of lives….”
OK there, Chorro….here’s hoping you’re next, lol…
Again, I would prefer 1000 ‘terrorists’ set free before ONE innocent man is hanged. If you lot can’t deal with simple justice, let us know…we’ll send down the Mounties…
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:14 am
Frosty if you are interested in the Rez life check out a couple books from Sherman Alexi, he grew up on the Coeur D’Alene reservation…Although the US treatment of the native americans was and in some ways is less than spectacular, Mr. Alexi shifts most of the blame on their current plight to the Native Americans. According to him the only way to escape being sucked into the depths of reservation hell is to reject the whole system and “run away”.
My brother lived on the Navajo reservation in Arizona for a while and he describes the mentality there as putridity suffocating any attempt at progress.
From my knowledge and observations using a Palinism,…an see the reservations from my house…The entire culture suffers from being wards of the state. Everybody is on welfare and nobody has any incentive to ever break out of it.
These are all the antecdotle biased reactions of three people. but the plight of the modern Native American is an interesting discussion that would be a nice change of pace on this site.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:21 am
sorry it’s Sherman Alexie…
also he’s made a couple of movies, the only one I’ve seen is Smoke Signals. It’s my dad’s favorite movie, I find it mildly amusing.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 am
It would.
And although I agree that reservations can be a “trap”, here in Canada we have been working hard to be fair, although native land claims in BC, for instance, total 150% of the actual land total!
The problem is, that you can’t just make up for the disadvantages and discrimination suffered over 300 years with a “payout”. Instead, it will take several generations of action to help the youth break out. They simply do not yet have the role models/family support/ and stability to compensate for the disadvantages foisted on them for centuries!
There are other complex factors as well, including drugs and alchohol, topics that are VERY hard to discuss with the far-right wingers who think that they are just “lazy” and “drunks”.
It makes me sad, it really does, when I hear people say that they should just “run away”…although I am not familiar with Mr Alexi, I’ll Kreegle him, but I wonder if it’s that simple.
I have seen many natives that have left the rez and done well, but many that have not due to many factors…
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:39 am
Indeed it is a very complex issue. One of his latest books is called the “Very True story of a part-time Indian”…or something like that. and though it’s fictional he admits it mirrors his life a lot. Basically the point of the story if you have any desire to get ahead educationally, his suggestion is to get off “The Rez”
Some of the problem involves the reservation system. Essentially they have these little enclaves that they rule themselves, but when they were set up the Natives had no basis for actual settlement and they’ve had to adapt to a completely different lifestyle in order to “compete” with western style settlement, currency, economy, lifestyles etc…
But seriously, rampant alcoholism and drug abuse on the reservations is probably their number 1 issue today, and without resolving that issue (and to resolve it will take dozens of years) true progress will lay in the hands of the one armed bandits.
sbj Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:29 am
Excuse me ??? 300 yrs. of Payouts = What?
Another 300yrs. of co-dependancy>>>>>>Fark-off!
sbj Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 am
No, in actuality they own 500% and they live on the dole… How do like them apples???
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 am
It’s only been a generation or two since many aboriginal peoples were forbidden to learn their own culture and use their own languages, so, no it’s not ‘their own’ fault if some have not prospered (yet) as well as perhaps they should have.
But I see great strides on and off the rez, including for those who were abused by religious organizations, and the ‘church’ for so many years….
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:02 am
JERRYSHIGH-FALLUTIN’ BLOG – is that you?!
lol
sbj Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:54 am
A generation or two??? A generation is roughly 10 yrs? But, I’m sure you’ll wik-google that, to, make sure you have your mini ##’s figured out. So, 300 yrs, is how many generations ??? The question, remains the same, how long is long???
sbj Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:05 am
Well, I have a problem with this ” Poor me Indigenous “. Some folks may be inclined, I just, don’t happen to be one of them…
Amen :)
Kregg Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
Frosty said: And although I agree that reservations can be a “trap”, here in Canada we have been working hard to be fair, although native land claims in BC, for instance, total 150% of the actual land total!
K: And, so you agree with my months ago statement about putting Indians in little museums called reservations after all. And to think you had so many violent bowel movements over it at the time…
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
?
Uh, no?
They are a “trap” in that they have high un-employment and substance abuse issues.
There are many reservations where there has been some intrinsic ‘value’ to the land, and the tribes are doing quite well, thanks.
I lived on one such for seven years.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
” a generation is roughly ten years”
Huh?
Not in my book…more like 33 years…three per century. Although some historians in the past have used 25 years, the most common length is closer to 30.
Not sure why YOU didn’t WIKLI that yourself, I already kinda new it. Er, that’s why I SAID it, lol.
And yes, all over North america is has only been a generation or two, call it since the 60’s and 70’s if you want, since indigneous peoples began to be recognized as hiving at least SOME extraordinary rights under the law.
For instance, hunting, fishing and logging rights….and to not pay property tax on their land to to the federal gov’t, if they live on it. you disagree with these rights?
Kregg Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Frosty said: Again, I would prefer 1000 ‘terrorists’ set free before ONE innocent man is hanged.
K: Who said anything about hanging these guys?
F: If you lot can’t deal with simple justice, let us know…we’ll send down the Mounties…
K: Uh, Dudley moved down here in 1983 and was last seen working in a 7/11 store. What is he, some sort of an undercover advance team?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
Kregg, that is what’s known as a ‘figure of speech’. Please Google it at get back to us when you finally can “get it”…
But for the record, I would also see 100 ‘terrorists’ sent home before one inoocent man was tortured. Is that easier for you?
Again, if you can’t seem to sort out who’s who with trials, court, and the law…we can help, canada seems to do it pretty good, except, of course, when we listen to YOU guys, and let you send our innocent citizens to Syria for torture, like Maher Arar. It’s called ” Etra-ordinary rendition”.
You might want to ‘Kreegle’ that too.
We paid him $10,000,000 after he was proved innocent, btw, and he has yet to receive even an apology from the US.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
I’ve been using you as an example of how delusional and anti-amercian Candadians are…
Don’t. Leave this guy be.
sNoBalls clearly does not represent the majority of God fearing Hockey lovin’ Canadians out there.
Rather, he is simply a dum a$$
sbj Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:19 am
You think???
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
I suck at my job?
Jeez. That hurts, it really does.
Lol
Zing.
Notice though, no refute of the obvious Blago reference.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 pm
I would prefer 1000 ‘terrorists’ set free before ONE innocent man is hanged.
Me too, but we ain’t hangin’ ‘em. Mate. Just punchin’ ‘em in the nose.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
it was always torture
This, technically, is not true.
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Based on what? If you are suggesting that when you are extracting information you are ‘interrogating’ rather than ‘torturing’, I disagree.
You are using the tactic of torture in your interrogation.
But perhaps you have a different line of argument than the above?
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Rather, he is simply a dum a$$
Who probably blames the internet for the lack of sales of his music.
Just sayin’
Balf Eubank would like to talk to you.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:31 pm
But perhaps you have a different line of argument than the above?
I do. You have seen it.
If I catch Terry the Terrorist and I believe that he has information that I want, I am going to scare him into giving it to me. If, during that scare session, I obtain the information that I want, come to believe that he doesn’t have it or that technique doesn’t work; then I should stop. The “Scare” has run it’s course.
But, if I continue to use said “scare” because I am sick, mean, angry or whatever…i.e. I am doing it “for fun” then the “scare” turns from technique into torture.
The same theory applies to raising a child and spanking. If, under control, a parent spanks in order to bring to attention the wrong doing, it’s fine. If, on the other hand, that parent is a struggling Canadian musician that’s just drunk or stoned, then that same spanking is abuse.
Capiche?
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Capiche?
I’m not sure… You are saying you would scare the bad guy, but you wouldn’t actually torture him?
Because if you would perform:
the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
Then you would be using the tactic of torture, whether you were punishing the bad guy, coercing information out of the bad guy, or whether you were doing it for fun.
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 am
Waterboarding seems to be outside of that definition.
Um Cara Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:05 am
I’ve almost drown before, and the pain is intense, especially the mental anguish (which is in the treaty we signed).
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 am
Oh, I don’t doubt that its scary.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:46 pm
You are using the tactic of torture in your interrogation.
By the way, according to that UN document, there is no such thing as interrogation. Once I say “I don’t know” the conversation is OVER.
Um Cara Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Not true,
torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
So if you are questioning without doing the stuff I put in bold, it is not torture.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:53 pm
I’m not sure… You are saying you would scare the bad guy, but you wouldn’t actually torture him?
Let’s see. If, by taking his hand and putting it in a drawer and saying, “Tell me or else”…then slamming that drawer shut breaking his fingers is scaring him or techniqu’ing him, call it what you want. Once he tells me or I believe that he doesn’t know….all drawer closing should stop.
Substitute multiple forms of pain for the drawer if you want. Hunger, sleep deprivation, etc etc
By the way, it’s not torture until the intent shifts.
Um Cara Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 am
By the way, it’s not torture until the intent shifts.
That isn’t how I have seen it defined. What do you base that on?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:23 am
I’m sure a better way to decide if torture is torture is to ask the person to whom the “tecnique” is being used on.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 am
much like the intent of your posts is probably benign…but to me they are pure torture.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 am
I just love it when the radical right tries to justify torture, or even justify torture not being as important as the results that it might gain. Also, good ole Karl jumping into the swamp with his political exlax-laced talking points….my, what a circus.
Why would we use torture that was designed to get false confessions from soldiers during the Korean War? Why would we want false confessions?…..well, the answer is that we were trying to get them to substantiate the non existant link between Al Quida and Saddam Husein….to convince the American people that we should have invaded Iraq. Thanks, Dick, George, and the rest of you bozos…you gave Al Quida a recruiting tool that no one else could have done so well….good show, lads, good form.
“Somebody get a rope” <== same old muttering from the cowboy crowd hanging around the jail in every B cowboy movie.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 am
Listen to the calls tonight, seriously…I’m gonna set it to music, I really am, lol
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 am
I love it when people try and justify torture…or pars out any possible way that torture could be considered good. It is just like listening to Chaney try and sound like he isn’t insane.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 am
What do you base that on?
Real life Amigo. Real life.
Um Cara Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 am
Well, in real life things like treaties and dictionaries define torture differently than you, so I respectfully disagree.
Robert Blair Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 am
When I see “intent” and other aspects parsed…it is an attempt to intellectualize a concept rather than dealing with your real world….they tortured people…and when it didn’t seem to get what they wanted in ten or twenty times, they tortured up to 180 times in a month….now, how could you discuss intent when you do the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Perhaps, you might consider that insane behavior….and that, lad, is certainly something that suggests immoral behavior to me.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 am
Think of it Mr. Cara. You have captured Guido and he knows where Van Horn is holding your daughter hostage.
No power on earth is going to prevent you from bringing harm onto Guido in order to determine where your child is. None.
Same applies to country. And you know it.
And if you don’t know it, why not make the act of war itself illegal?
Um Cara Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:42 am
You have captured
GuidoFred and he knows where Van Horn is holding your daughter hostage.I’d rather not use Guido as the example, he wouldn’t do that to my hypothetical daughter, even hypothetically.
I, of course, would not be rational in such a situation. And by law I would not be allowed to touch Fred if he were in custody, and the police would not let me get near Fred. And the police would not torture Fred either to gain information on the whereabouts of my daughter.
Same applies to country. And you know it.
Yes, I do. So do you.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 am
I Hereby the undersigned do agree to not kidnap the daughters of co-signatories to this pact. If in the case that a daughter is hereby kidnapped by a co-signatary. I agree to not engage in torture, maiming, threatening, excessive playing of Barry Manilow (excepting of course the song Mandy, which is kicka$$)waterboard or any other action that is regarded as hostile or damaging physically or psychologically or emotionally in order to extract information on the whereabouts of the missing daughter on any suspecting party.
IF in the case a daughter or a signatory is kidnapped by a non-signatory party to this agreement, the same vow shall be in effect, excepting the agreement to not playing Barry Manilow, this clause shall be hereby null and void if a non-signatory party be the kidnappor.
In the case the kidnappee is recovered without incident, the signatory may then torture the offending party as punishment for the offense of kidnapping.
The clause or torture in the case of recovery is persuant to the whims of the offended signatory party and cannot be enforced by the will of any other signatory or be commuted by the offending party or other signatories.
any and all who wish to sign the above are free and clear and do so under the premise that the above is not a legal document enforcable by any nation or municipality.
GUIDO VAN HORN
Um Cara Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:03 am
–Um Cara
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:11 am
Pino…can we count you in?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:15 am
Amendment I- Any breaking of this pact by kidnapping the daughter of a co-signatory, or by torturing others in the pursuit of recovering said daughter shall result in your name being changed to “Douchebag.” All correspondence and replies to your posts will be changed from your chosen moniker to “Douchebag” or like pejorative (e.g. douche, d-bag, D.B. et al.) by all signatories.
Kregg Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:22 am
Sorry Guido, I can’t sign it for two reasons: 1. The Barry Manilow thing, and 2. I’d leave him to law enforcement if I got her back. Its what I’d do to gain the info to get her back thats at issue.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 am
I don’t think I’d torture Um Cara to find out where my daughter is…at least I don’t think I would…and hopefully he’d return the favor.
Although I’d hope that I’d refrain from kidnapping his daughter in the first place, and if by some chance someone else kidnapped his daughter and I happened to know where she was, I really hope that I’d just tell him and not have to be threatened or harmed.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 am
treaties and dictionaries define torture differently than you,
But the law doesn’t. Yet. And yes. We will respectfully disagree.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 am
And the police would not torture Fred either to gain information on the whereabouts of my daughter.
Yes. Yes they most certainly would. For example, how many suspected cop killers are actually brought in alive.
And you continue to know it.
Um Cara Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:49 am
For example, how many suspected cop killers are actually brought in alive.
Many, at least I sincerely hope our police are not acting as death squads.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:11 am
And you continue to watch a bit too much “24″…
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 am
Question: Since we have been water boarding marines and special forces trainees for decades as training for what might happen to them if captured, is such an exercise ‘torture’? Do we ‘torture’ our military recruits – or does intent define the action?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Again (patiently), Kregg, there is a world of difference between an “exercise” in waterboarding, and the real thing. No marine is going to fear that things will ‘go to far’ and he will die.
It has not to do with “intent”…it has to do with how the subject’s brain reacts.
marine = takes the ‘training’ like a marine! Knows he will not be harmed.
“suspect” = genuinely fears for his life. Especially innocent ’suspect’, who at this time starts making stuff up.
Kregg, there are volunteers in the military and coast guard who have even subjected themselves to actual drowning, believe it or not, knowing that the second they lose conciousness they are pulled from the water and resusitated by the experiment staff.
Do you think, Kregg, that these brave ‘volunteers’ have the same experience of ‘terror’ as a sailor who falls off his ship in the dead of winter at night when no-one sees him?
If you cannot see the difference, than you really don’t know what fear is, do you?
Have you ever thought you were going to die, even just for a few seconds?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
false testimony/confessions should always be a concern.
when the possible punishment for telling the truth outweighs the possible punishment for telling a lie…sometimes lying can become your best interest.
There are very few times when torture could even be effective.
Kregg Reply:
April 25th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Frosty, lecturing: Again (patiently), Kregg, there is a world of difference between an “exercise” in waterboarding, and the real thing. No marine is going to fear that things will ‘go to far’ and he will die.
K: I’m getting tired of having to come back and get you up to speed, dude. Um said waterboarding was torture – period. So, if waterboarding is alway torture then we are torturing our marine recruits. Now, hold on for the fast part: IF waterboarding is NOT always ‘torture’ because we obviously aren’t torturing our marines – but educating them – then waterboarding must not ALWAYS be torture. Get it? There will be a quiz….
F: It has not to do with “intent”…it has to do with how the subject’s brain reacts.
K: Uh, about 100 times into the 183 waterboard sessions don’t you think even a terrorist’s brain is going to react and he will realize these guys aren’t going to kill him? Duh…
F: marine = takes the ‘training’ like a marine! Knows he will not be harmed.
F: “suspect” = genuinely fears for his life. Especially innocent ’suspect’, who at this time starts making stuff up.
K: terrorist=takes the ‘technique’ like a terrorist! Knows he will not be killed.
F: Kregg, there are volunteers in the military and coast guard who have even subjected themselves to actual drowning, believe it or not, knowing that the second they lose conciousness they are pulled from the water and resusitated by the experiment staff.
K: Except these guys never drown. How many terrorists have we killed by waterboarding?
F: Do you think, Kregg, that these brave ‘volunteers’ have the same experience of ‘terror’ as a sailor who falls off his ship in the dead of winter at night when no-one sees him?
K: Most certainly! There’s a nature panic reaction – thats why they do it! Its also why the interrogators waterboard – to trigger the involuntary panic reaction.
F: If you cannot see the difference, than you really don’t know what fear is, do you?
K: We WANT the panic reaction, Frosty. Thats what makes them talk. They probably wet their pants once in a while too. But, hey, it beats the hell out of whacking their heads off like the terrorists do to our guys so they ought to be thankful we got ‘em rather than some of their own countries…
F: Have you ever thought you were going to die, even just for a few seconds?
K: Yes…
Kregg Reply:
April 25th, 2009 at 12:03 am
F: Have you ever thought you were going to die, even just for a few seconds?
K: Yes… Although I was probably not as fearful as you would be, considering I believe I’ll eventually be resurrected while you’ll just stay dead. Its a point to consider…
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:43 am
There are very few times when torture could even be effective.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
well as it’s an unnamed source I take it with the same grain of salt that I use for other like situations…but I’ll say this…either they found a situation where torture could be effective…or they are liars.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
as it’s an unnamed source
President Obama’s national intelligence director:
His name is Adm. Dennis C. Blair
msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 pm
that article is actually an interesting read…in that he admits that there is no way of knowing if the information couldn’t have been extracted by other means, and that he also issued a statement saying that torture has given us a bad name in the world.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
The fact that torturing may sometimes bring even “significant information” (whatever that means) is besides the point.
As a nation, is this what you want to do?
For an undetermined extra amount of “safety”?
There are MANY things you could do to make you “safer”… road blocks where your citizen papers are checked/ random house searches/random drug tests for all citizens/speed limiters on cars/survellience cameras throughout public space/surprise strip searches at the workplace…and so on.
The question is, do you want to be a nation that tortures? Why have ANY rules of engagement at all? Napalm, bring it on…
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:55 pm
I concur.
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:54 pm
As a nation, is this what you want to do?
Put a bug in a box so dude talks? Yup.
Don’t let him sleep till dude talks? Yup.
Water board the highest ranking members of the enemy? Yup.
Keep doing all of that on and on and on and on for fun. Nope. I think what they did to that guy like 186 times, is horrible.
The question is, do you want to be a nation that tortures?
I know that we differ on the term torture. And with that said, I do want to be the guys that use something north of coffee and a smoke to get information.
Why have ANY rules of engagement at all?
Do you accept that actions on a battle field in service to the country is different than that SAME action conducted as a civilian?
April 24th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Many, at least I sincerely hope our police are not acting as death squads.
And then this; just cause The Blessed Leader is all down with my rights and, ya know, all.
pino Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Mr. Cara. Wanted to make sure you see this:
And you thought we don’t “torture” our own…..Silly silly Mr. Cara.
Um Cara Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Pino,
Getting ready to head out for the night, but….
The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer is present
That is outrageous, as is his department’s continued harassment of California medical marijuana dispensaries. (Especially considering Obama’s past use of pot recreationally, about which he has joked – appropriately understanding that even non medical partaking of marijuana is not a big deal, but then prosecuting those who facilitate the legal medical use?)
You do understand that I do not think Obama, or any politician, is ‘blessed’ or ‘anointed’ or any of the other holy words you use to describe him?
I’m anti torture, and pro civil rights.
Which would mean that there is a reported act of police misconduct every 81 minutes in the USA if the average is sustained.
Yes, I am aware there are cases of police misconduct, and I think they should be prosecuted for it.
And you thought we don’t “torture” our own…..Silly silly Mr. Cara.
And they get in trouble for it, that’s why the word ‘misconduct’ is used. That’s why they can be prosecuted or otherwise receive sanctions for conducting it.
I don’t understand the purpose of this post, Pino – but that’s probably because I am thinking about gettin out of dodge and having some fun…
Bom fim de semana, senhor Pino!
April 24th, 2009 at 8:55 am
In a tyranny, torture is used to induce confessions for acts actually carried by the tyranny. The tyranny can then say that the person tortured “admitted” doing it. This is how it works.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:23 am
[...] do those horrible, nasty things like our enemies do. Just ignore that the techniques we use date back to the Spanish Inquisition and, in more modern times, Communist China. Forget that after Word War II we prosecuted those who [...]
April 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Kregg,
Um said waterboarding was torture – period. So, if waterboarding is alway torture then we are torturing our marine recruits.
I appreciate that you have elevated me to the one of your authoritative sources.
However, what I have said (repeatedly) is that there is a huge difference between your buddies performing this on you, when you know full well that they have your interests at heart, as opposed to an enemy soldier doing this to you.
I would also be interested to learn which troops this is performed on. For example, if it is part of Navy Seal training, it is voluntary, as you can drop out of Seal Training when you want to.
I don’t recall saying Waterboarding our own troops as a part of training is torture, can you show me the quote?
If I did, I was wrong. Torture, as defined by treaty which we have entered into, is:
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
We aren’t trying to punish or extract information from our troops when we waterboard them, we are training them on how to lie and give false info in order to get the enemy to stop, should they be captured and tortured by an enemy so barbaric as to resort to torture.
Kregg Reply:
April 25th, 2009 at 12:33 am
UM said: I appreciate that you have elevated me to the one of your authoritative sources.
K: Hey, you’re already my go to astro-physics guy so why not ‘torture’ source? ;-)
U: However, what I have said (repeatedly) is that there is a huge difference between your buddies performing this on you, when you know full well that they have your interests at heart, as opposed to an enemy soldier doing this to you.
K: I’m not so sure there is. I suspect what the interrogators were doing was invoking the panic attack natural to drowning. I don’t think it has anything to do with ‘knowledge’ that your buds won’t let you die at all. Achmed has GOT to intellectually know after a few rounds on the ol’ board that they aren’t going to actually drown him. Right? So, there has to be something else they are triggering than simple fear.
U: I would also be interested to learn which troops this is performed on. For example, if it is part of Navy Seal training, it is voluntary, as you can drop out of Seal Training when you want to.
K: Special Forces and Marines. And, it doesn’t matter whether or not its voluntary. Doesn’t matter that the trainees know their buds will not kill them because it wouldn’t be effective training if they did. The involuntary panic attack that comes from being boarded is the same for both terrorist and trainee, I’m sure.
U: I don’t recall saying Waterboarding our own troops as a part of training is torture, can you show me the quote?
K: No, I picked up somewhere back that you considered it always to be torture. It was around the area where the different treaty definitions were being discussed and I made the training point to demonstrate that ‘boarding could be legitimately defined different ways…
If I did, I was wrong. Torture, as defined by treaty which we have entered into, is:
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
K: I agree that the treaty you posted earlier pretty much eliminated any form of attitude adjustment at while interrogating prisoners.
U: We aren’t trying to punish or extract information from our troops when we waterboard them, we are training them on how to lie and give false info in order to get the enemy to stop, should they be captured and tortured by an enemy so barbaric as to resort to torture.
K: I’d still rather be waterboarded if caught than subjected to the other common methods – shooting and beheading.
Um Cara Reply:
April 25th, 2009 at 12:37 am
I’d still rather be waterboarded if caught than subjected to the other common methods – shooting and beheading.
And I still don’t set the bar for appropriate US behavior as merely ‘not as bad as the worst countries’. I base that on the morals I learned from the society in which I live. And that has always been a country that does not torture.
You believe you get your morals from God, right? Is He down with torture?
Kregg Reply:
April 25th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Um said: And I still don’t set the bar for appropriate US behavior as merely ‘not as bad as the worst countries’. I base that on the morals I learned from the society in which I live. And that has always been a country that does not torture.
K: Um, I respect your position on waterboarding as torture. My position is different. I don’t think waterboarding meets the test of torture in my book.
U: You believe you get your morals from God, right? Is He down with torture?
K: Well, people surely accuse Him of it beings that in ‘hell’ people supposedly burn forever in anger and gnashing of teeth… I can’t presume that God would approve one method or another of gaining information in a sinful world full of evil but your point is well taken. The only answer I feel qualified to give is my opinion that He’d prefer a non-permanent panic technique over pulling fingernails, etc… I wouldn’t pretend to know God’s mind on war except to understand that He has led his people into wars.
Um Cara Reply:
April 25th, 2009 at 12:56 am
People surely accuse Him of it beings that in ‘hell’ people supposedly burn forever in anger and gnashing of teeth
Right, but that’s His judgment (which, to my understanding, He considers that judgment entirely His territory)
I wouldn’t pretend to know God’s mind on war except to understand that He has led his people into wars.
Are there any examples where the good guys torture folks in the Bible? I’m not sure that living ‘as christ like’ as possible is Christian doctrine common to all Christians, but I have heard many Christians talk about it.
Is it Christ like to torture? Or is that a non issue (i.e. is living Christ like not something you believe in (honest question, again, I don’t know that it isn’t just certain Christian sects that talk about doing that, or if it is common to all or most)).
Suffocating a person until they either lie convincingly, or otherwise satisfy your curiosity on a given subject is torture. At least think about it some more, pray on it (if it is not terribly rude for me to ask you to do so).
Kregg Reply:
April 25th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Um, I’m not telling you that God condones ANY of this topic. I AM telling yo what I would find acceptable and what I would not. What I do NOT think is that God would want another 3,000 people to die in yet another skyscraper collapse brought on by yet another band of merry jihadists. So, until we all hear a voice from the clouds saying “FEED THEM TWINKIES” or “FORCE THEM TO LISTEN TO PAT ROBERTSON AT 33 1/2 SPEED” I’ll stick with my personal interpretation of what is torture and what is not.
Um Cara Reply:
April 25th, 2009 at 1:14 am
I’m not telling you that God condones ANY of this topic.
It’s just that usually that pretty strongly informs your opinion on matters. It is strange to me that on this matter it does not. It sure seems like an important enough moral matter to have a chat w/ Him, as a part of your prayers (and for all I know it is. I’ll get off that soapbox, as I feel fairly uncomfortable harassing you about it in that way. Last time. I promise.)
“FORCE THEM TO LISTEN TO PAT ROBERTSON AT 33 1/2 SPEED”
At least give them the option of being beheaded first! Show some humanity here!!
Kregg Reply:
April 25th, 2009 at 1:25 am
U: It’s just that usually that pretty strongly informs your opinion on matters. It is strange to me that on this matter it does not.
K; My personal position is that – from what I understand about waterboarding – it is a far more humane interrogation method than those that leave a person physically or mentally ruined. Given that we must extract information that could save lives from resistant people I’m open to any other way to do so. What would you do to gain vital info?
U: It sure seems like an important enough moral matter to have a chat w/ Him, as a part of your prayers (and for all I know it is. I’ll get off that soapbox, as I feel fairly uncomfortable harassing you about it in that way. Last time. I promise.)
K: I’m not embarrassed to have you ask the content of my prayer, Um. ;-) Truthfully, not being involved with – or responsible for – waterboarding or for otherwise extracting info I’ve not given it the personal consideration and importance I’d pray about. If I WAS in such a position I’m sure I’d have to search my soul on whether or not I could participate.
“FORCE THEM TO LISTEN TO PAT ROBERTSON AT 33 1/2 SPEED”
U: At least give them the option of being beheaded first! Show some humanity here!!
K Sorry, its that or Barry Manilow…
Um Cara Reply:
April 25th, 2009 at 1:31 am
What would you do to gain vital info?
I posted a link for Pino earlier, can’t find it right now…
But waterboarding is Spanish Inquisition era stuff, we have come a long way w/ regards to interrogation techniques (psycologicalishy stuff).
Just do a search on interrogation techniques, and you’ll find quite a bit of info…
anyway, bedtime.
Goodnight.
trees are people too Reply:
April 25th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Goodnight Um, your friend trees
Kregg Reply:
April 25th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Indeed, it IS bedtime. I just got back from Newport Beach. Had to shoot a regatta down there and help my brother sell t-shirts…
April 25th, 2009 at 12:16 am