Iraq: Haliburton Employers gang rape an employee.

[cxt]

Styke

Its not a question of them being "lesser" its a question of the intent of the Consitution---which is that it applies to American citizens---the intent of the Framers is pretty clear on that.

[Stryke]

I wonder wether they thought that transparent justice was only an ideal for American citizens .

and I apologise for getting so far of topic , I realise its at a risk of alienating many folks , and theres no value in that .

just thought an outside/foreign perspective may shed some light on some held perceptions .

but happy to agree to disagree , as I said not political so much as Ideological .

In my view they have the rights of vermin, and not much more. We should waste as little time with them as possible. Any dignity accorded them is strictly a matter of OUR discretion.

it is not a matter of the dignity given to them , but the dignity you afford yourself in maintaining a higher standard .

Honour is the gift one gives to ones self

winning hearts and minds .... Not creating martyrs for more fence siting nutjobs

A hurtful act is the transference to others of the degradation which we bear in ourselves.
Simone Weil

[Valkenar]

Kuma-de:

Listen to the Apathy in your reply. You have absolutely no idea what is happening in this world do you?

It's not apathy, but a difference in perception.

There are people that are radicals that wake up every morning whose only mission is to find a way to kill people with viewpoints not in line with theirs.

I'm well aware of this. I'm also aware that heart disease, cancer and car accidents are going to kill a thousand times more people than terrorism ever will. It's not apathy, it's a matter of keeping perspective. Terrorism is an important issue, one we need to address. It isn't is a reason to sacrifice our liberties, our sense of human dignity and our morality. We're a long way from the kind of panicked emergency that could remotely justify throwing out our values for the sake of survival.

Call it apathy if you like, but don't you think there's a difference between apathy and prudence. It's true, I'm not in a constant state of trembling fear and worry. That doesn't mean I don't care and that doesn't mean I'm not looking at the situation carefully.

Bill made a list above and I will not duplicate it here. Sadly, your argument against so-called torture just fizzled with this reply.

It proves totally your lack of understanding of what is actually occurring in the world.

It's clear we have very different understandings. To me, it appears you are cultivating some nightmare scenario of American conquest and subservience. I think this is highly unrealistic. The most likely scenario is that we experience more frequent terrorist attacks than we have in the past. And that would be a terrible thing. But it would not be the end of the country. If 9/11 happened every single year, it would be lost in the noise of mortality statistics. Do you realize that 9 times as many people comitted suicide in 2003 as died in 9/11? Do you realize that 6 times as many people were murdered during the year? Terrorism is an awful, awful thing, and 9/11 was a horrible disaster and I would never mean to minimize the plight of the victims and their loved ones. But people act as if terrorism is literally apocalyptic, and truly, it's not.

We need to react, and strongly to this threat. We need to make sure that we're protecting ourselves and not go quietly into the night, as it was. But we don't need to get into this mindset where the end is nigh and we're all going to be burning in our beds tomorow if we show any humanity ourselves. That's not realistic, it's not effective, and it's not good for our country. If we lose who we are just because there's the potential for worsening terrorism, then what good has all that fear done us?

He has only used puke from various left wing blogs that I have read several times....I think I have done a good job pointing out his faux pas; as has several others in the thread.

I don't read blogs of any wing. If some of my views coincide with some left wing blog, it's just as incidental as the fact that some of your views coincide with right wing blogs.

CXT:

I think in some cases waterboarding can be used to prevent MORE "victems" Val.

Yes, and in some cases you might be able to pick up someone children and torture them in front of them to prevent more victims. That wouldn't be right either. Obviously that would be worse than water boarding. Torture is victimization. You might not happen to have any empathy for those victims, but unless you're saying that there is absolutely no limit to what you would do to extract potentially life-saving information, the only difference is where we draw the line. It seems to me that I would draw the line at torture while you would draw it at only "The worst" torture.

What are YOU giving them other than the afore-mentioned platitudes?

Support. Also I think torture is just going to increase the number of victims in the long run. It may prevent a few deaths now, but the ill will it breeds is going to cause a lot more later. We are not yet at a point where all of our good will is spent. There's a long way to go before everybody hates us. I'm hoping we never get there, but torture is one road to antipathy.

C1-Please present evidence that EVERYONE sent to Gitmo is "tortured" and exactly how.

I never said any such thing, so I have no need to present evidence for this notion.

In my view they have the rights of vermin, and not much more. We should waste as little time with them as possible. Any dignity accorded them is strictly a matter of OUR discretion.

Legally, I pretty much agree, but ethically, I don't. Basic human rights aren't limitted to citizens of our country. Neither the consitution nor the federal lawbooks define human rights, they only describe or reflect. When people transgress, you punish them, but I don't wish to be lowered to the level of people who cheer when an American is abused in the streets. Today, what we do is less severe than what they do. But it's a difference of degree, not kind. That kind of abuse is deplorable whether in small doses or large.

[Bill Glasheen]

Legally, I pretty much agree, but ethically, I don't.

That's pretty much how I feel.

I just get a little testy when foreign-born terrorists expect to be treated by our constitutional standards rather than the standards they would accord citizens of their Platonic Nazi world. I get a bit irked when people can cross our borders and expect free medical care and government-sponsored education. I get a little upset when some lawyer wants to go to court to sue for the "rights" of detainees at Gitmo.

Any dignity accorded them is strictly a matter of OUR discretion.

We've been plenty kind already. We don't need to be preached to by governments or political entities who don't walk the talk.

If innocent, we're happy to return said detainees to the countries of their origin where they can receive some home-grown love.

- Bill

[cxt]

Val

But AGAIN, that IMO is a nearly hysterical conflation of the key points of the issue.
We are NOT talking about "torturing childern" were talking about hardened mass murdering relgious zealots and waterbording which is mainly mentally and emontinally stressful--seems to cause little pain and has not been shown to have any long term effects.

These are drastic, substantive, differnces.

I don't see that as "torture" so no, in that case I don't draw a line there.
That being said, speaking just for me--I'd have to agree that essentially I would only be opposed to the "worst" torture........mainly because as far as I'm concerned certain acts are so henious that commiting them causes you to lose your humanity ticket and any benefits thereof.
Is that harsh?
Yeah, probbaly....I just can't come up with an workable argument where a person willingly, delibratly, CHOOSES to break fundemental rules of society---and yet should expect decent and humane treatment FROM the very society they so horribly reject.

Society has a fundemental right to defend itself.

I see it differently-----the phrase I keep using "Kindness to the cruel is cruelity to the kind" rather strongly imples that YOU don't happen to have any empathy for the "victems" of terror here....at least not enough to consider methods that might save MORE innocent lives.

And you "support" them exactly how Val????
Please recall that your the guy that claimed above that you don't even need to MENTION/TALK about people being beheaded etc because eveyone knows that its bad.
So what "support" do you provide the victems of terrorists???

Ah, but you DID imply that eveyone at Gitmo has been tortured---you mentined Gitmo and torture in the same sentnce without seperating the 2, ie merely being at Gitmo IS "torture."

[Valkenar]

Val
waterbording which is mainly mentally and emontinally stressful--seems to cause little pain and has not been shown to have any long term effects.

Well, it's not exactly feasible to do a controlled study of whether water boarding is damaging in an interrogation setting.

as I'm concerned certain acts are so henious that commiting them causes you to lose your humanity ticket and any benefits thereof.

I just can't come up with an workable argument where a person willingly, delibratly, CHOOSES to break fundemental rules of society---and yet should expect decent and humane treatment FROM the very society they so horribly reject.

I don't give a hoot what they expect.

The point isn't what they do, it's what we do. Morality is refusing to steal even though everyone else is. Just because our enemies want to cheapen the value of human life and suffering doesn't mean we have to accept that and do the same.

I understand that it feels like it's letting the terrorists get away with it. But it's not, it's simply being strong enough in our own moral principles to say "You may insult human dignity, you may show yourself to be a callous brute, you may try to degrade us, but we refuse to be degraded. We refuse to conform to your image of what it means to have an enemy."

The fact is, morality is not really beneficial for the moral. Is that a reason not to be moral?

I see it differently-----the phrase I keep using "Kindness to the cruel is cruelity to the kind" rather strongly imples that YOU don't happen to have any empathy for the "victems" of terror here....at least not enough to consider methods that might save MORE innocent lives.

I understand the implication. If you want to impugn my empathy, go ahead. I think we understand each other as well as we're going to, for now.

You believe torture has a good chance of saving lives. I think it's very unreliable.

You think torture will deter other victimizers. I think it will just incite more violence against us.

You believe that the possibility of protecting potential future victims outweighs the humanity of anyone who has pledged membership to an evil organization.

Is that all accurate?

The only thing I have left to add is that not every potential torture victim fits that caricature of the hardened, mass-murdering terrorist. Someone might belong to a terrorist group, may not have actually done anything (yet), but he may know something.

Can you explain under what conditions exactly you'd advocate torture? What exactly would that have to have done to lose their humanity card? What level of assurance that they have the information would you need? What level of assurance that they'd eventually break and spill it?

I just don't see how you can be willing to support torture if you can't answer these questions.

Ah, but you DID imply that eveyone at Gitmo has been tortured---you mentined Gitmo and torture in the same sentnce without seperating the 2, ie merely being at Gitmo IS "torture."

Where did I use guantanamo and torture in the same sentence? Please quote it. Generally I don't understand why you can't be bothered to quote things.

That said, I'll clarify: Being at Guantanamo means you are subject to being tortured. It doesn't mean you will be, just that you can be. Frankly, I don't trust the government and I think they will do whatever they can get away with. That means using torture when it's convenient for them. Which, in turn, means that if you get dragged off to Guantanamo you stand a chance of being tortured regardless of what you've done. That's the problem with having places that are outside the law where you can go to be held, interrogated and tortured without charge. Will it happen every time to everyone who shows up? Of course not.

[cxt]

Val

We send our OWN people thu it---so I'm pretty comfortable on it being mentally/emotionally stressful but not causeing much actual pain or long term effects....certainly none of the reporters, newcasters, miliatry personel--even a radio disc jocky in my home town who had it done to him on air have reported long term problems.

Interesting isn't it---you essnetially argued above that the mere potential of saving lives was not sufficnet to allow waterboarding.
Yet directly above you suggest that the mere potential of POSSIBLE harms, with NO study actually having been done should be enough to stop its use.
So a potential benefit should be ignored yet a potential harm embraced as if it were accoding to Hoyle proofs??????

IMO view "morality" also invloves treating the evil as they have acted.
I don't consider it "degrading" to myself and my ethics to treat mass murdering scumbags with the same utter disregard for their "humanity" that they inflicted upon their victems.

I don't define "my" ethics by to what extent I extend every possible kindness to callous, brutal, monster.
"My" ethics are better determined by what I do to ptotect the helpless and prevent MORE innocent people from being killed.

I'm not "impuging your empathy" I simply think its seriously misplaced.

I think waterboarding has proven itself as very successful....we captured the Kalid Sheikh Mohammed by inforamtion obtained thu its use.

I don't think waterboarding is "torture" in that way word is meant to used.

I said that from an ethcial perspective I had yet to see a effective construct where NOT causeing evil people temporary pain should take precendence over saving innocent lives.

BTW, you really have to stop using such hysterical hyperbole like "outweighs the humanity of anyone that has pleged to an evil organization"...I certainly NEVER said that.

But as long as you brought it up---please explain the ethical reasoning for such deep respect for the "humanity" of such an individual while IGNOREING the "humanity" of their victems and more importantly their FUTURE victems????

Ok, say your not a member of a terrorist group, yet you "know something."
Please explain the ETHICAL reasoning for not stepping and telling someone.
Say its bomb---what are the ethics of allowing large numbers of innocent people to die--why would you not say anything?
And does such callous indiffernce to the "humanity" of those that will be killed make you "evil?"

What if you knew where one of the guys that behead Pearl was located and you refused to tell---is not that tacit allegence to the viewpoint an INHUMAITY of those that killed him?

These are deep question that requure more than glib "sound bites" in place reasoned analysis.

I'll take a shot, if I had known terrorist in custody, I'd waterboard him on the off chance he would break and tell me somethng useful---it doesn't really hurt him and the potential good it would do IMO outweighs any potential harms.
Thats just me.

But that is my POINT Val---AGAIN, you attach the word "torture" to Gitmo--sure you parse it out in a highly nuanced fashion---seriously where CAN'T you "tortured"????

And see what is at work is a deeper issue than waterboarding---you and I quote "Frankly I don't trust the goverment."--so your not appraoching this rationally, your letting your knee-jerk bias get in the way.

The truth is that your a hell of a lot safer from "torture" at Gitmo than most of the places these folks come from---as evidence by the FAMILIES of some of the detainees trying to top the USA from RELEASING them.

And AGAIN, your proving my point for me---you state and I quote:

"That is the problem with having places that are outside the law"

Which BTW is the very defination of what terrorists do.

But ONLY Gitmo makes it into your post---once again those that do REAL terror and torture escape comment by you.

[Valkenar]

We send our OWN people thu it

I'm not convinced it's the same. If you're a friend who punches me in karate class it's way different than if you're a friend who punches me on the street. Sure, both are punches, but ignoring the context is wrong.

Interesting isn't it---you essnetially argued above that the mere potential of saving lives was not sufficnet to allow waterboarding.

It's not that interesting. Torture is wrong. I don't think the ends justify the means.

Furthermore, torture seems very unlikely to yield positive results most of the time (despite working occasionaly) and almost certain to yield negative results most of the time.

I don't consider it "degrading" to myself and my ethics to treat mass murdering scumbags with the same utter disregard for their "humanity" that they inflicted upon their victems.

Okay. Well, I think how you treat prisoners is important, murdering scumbags or not.

I'm not "impuging your empathy" I simply think its seriously misplaced.

Yes you are, but I don't care enough to discuss it.

"-the phrase I keep...rather strongly imples that YOU don't happen to have any empathy for the "victems" of terror"

You're saying I have no empathy for victims of terror.

I think waterboarding has proven itself as very successful....

I never denied that it's impossible for it to ever work. Show me some evidence that it has a high success rate for saving lives and 'll be interested.

I said that from an ethcial perspective I had yet to see a effective construct where NOT causeing evil people temporary pain should take precendence over saving innocent lives.

Right well, we disagree about what torture is. I'm not talking about temporary discomfort. Also I think the whole concept of evil people is flawed. People have desires and motivations and beliefs. It's never as simple as "XYZ is evil" I would call torturing people evil, but I'm not going to say anyone who supports torture is an evil person. That presupposes this whole idea of that certain people are just bad apples. Sociopaths aside, I think that's incorrect.

But as long as you brought it up---please explain the ethical reasoning for such deep respect for the "humanity" of such an individual while IGNOREING the "humanity" of their victems and more importantly their FUTURE victems????

I never suggested ignoring victims. I never suggested not trying to prevent terrorist acts. The ethical reason is simple. It's not right to do something you know is immoral because you think that the result might be moral.

Torturing any person is immoral. Not as immoral as torturing an innocent, but still immoral. I wouldn't torture an innocent person to save 10 lives and I wouldn't torture a terrorist to save 1.

And does such callous indiffernce to the "humanity" of those that will be killed make you "evil?"

It doesn't make you evil, but it's an evil thing to do.

I'll take a shot, if I had known terrorist in custody, I'd waterboard him on the off chance he would break and tell me somethng useful---it doesn't really hurt him and the potential good it would do IMO outweighs any potential harms.

Well I wouldn't water board him because it does really hurt him and probably wouldn't do any good at all.

But that is my POINT Val---AGAIN, you attach the word "torture" to Gitmo--sure you parse it out in a highly nuanced fashion---seriously where CAN'T you "tortured"????

What is your point? What are you refering to? If you can't be bothered to quote I'm not going to bother trying to figure out what you're talking about.

"Frankly I don't trust the goverment."--so your not appraoching this rationally, your letting your knee-jerk bias get in the way.

On the contrary, distrust of the government is quite rational and sensible. Better men than me have voiced distrust of government.

But ONLY Gitmo makes it into your post---once again those that do REAL terror and torture escape comment by you.

So I should put after every sentence "terrorists are bad people who terrorisze and torture?" Tell me ,what is it you want exactly? You want me to paste a paragraph about how bad terrorism is every time I post?

[cxt]

Val

Again, Val that is a psotion so nuanced as to have no effect on reailty...probbaly sounds good at parties though.

Your missing the point---you switched the relative importance of "potential/possibilty" before just the "possibilty" that would save inocent lives was not sufficnt to do it---THEN the "possibilty" that it might cause long term damage to mass murdering terrorist suddenly became suffiecnt reason NOT to do it.

How about you pick a line of reasoning and at least try to stick with it????

Which is why using a low grade "non" torture method like waterboarding is so justifiable---it does no real harm and its been proven to work---problems solved.

And I don't---Unlawfaul combatants have almost NO rights under the Geneva Conventions--and that is on purpose.
If they want rights then they need ot put on uniforms, stopping delibratly targeting innocent people etc.
If you CHOOSE to put on a mask and rig a bomb to kill a school bus full of kids I find it laughable that anyone would find it "important" that you were well treated.

And i find it deeply troubling that supposed serious people are more concerned with how such a person is treated then they are about stopping them and those like them from killing MORE innocent people

AGAIN, NOT "impuging your empathy" DO think its seriously misplaced....and I find the highly selective areas where "empathy" makes it apperance in people with your general mindset annoying.
Empathy for terrorist, criminals, child abusers, murderers, despots etc-----THAT they have in endless supply.
Empathy for the VICTEMS of terrorists, criminals, childabusers, murderers, desposts---Now THAT you don't hear much of...other than highly nuanced postions........

Oh, and they a they also pretty good at using overly dramatic verbage and expressing a "holier than thou" attitude at anyone not as enlightened as they.

I'm saying that you have EXPRESSED little to no "empathy for the victems of terror"----certainly not nearly as much as you have expressed for how the people that KILLED/TERRORIZED them are being treated...........how else would you suggest that drastically different compartitive treatment be taken?????


"Show me a high success rate"

A-So when is saving lives a matter of statistic's---is saving one child not enough?

B-Since you don't want it done, how can I present a larger sample of a succes rate......see you kind have do a thing in order to have a success rating.

C-Is capturing one the mastermind of 9/11 a "success" enough for you???
I tend to think that intell that led to the capture of Kalid Sheik Mohammod to be a "succes."
The more so since Abu Zubaida seesm to have not been harmed by the process.

Only God can see into a persons heart/motivations---man however can see what they DO--and people that do certain things are close enough to evil to warrent that disctinction and at a certain point the "why" matters far less to me than the what a person "does."

They not "bad apples" they are human beings with FREEDOM OF CHOICE---they CHOSE to target innocent people, they CHOSE bomb market, they CHOSE not to wear uniforms, they CHOSE there acts--and the must suffer the consequnces-----up to and includeing waterboarding them if they might have intel.
At some point responsibity for those choices needs to be taken.

I disagree, I presented several perfectly ethical constucts where NOT doing is actually the "immoral" thing do.

If you honestly "Wouldn't torture a terrorist to save one life."
Then your not an ethical person at all---a skilled and glib practioner of a sinister brand of moral equivilence perhaps--but deeply lacking in the very "humanity" your demanding of others.

You did it again, you keep using Gitmo and "torture" as if they were one and the same---its not even accruate reasoning BTW--which I laid out for you above.

But when allow that distrust to blind you to the facts its not "distust" its "ideology"--and in this case a perncious one.

I don't Val, I can't see what motivates you, I can only see what you DO---and from where I sit and from what I read----your nearly frothing about pretty much everyone and everything EXCEPT the terrorists and the misery and pain and death they sow.

But don't blame me for how you come across--I belive I have been trying to help you see that for multiple pages now.

[Valkenar]

Sorry for being curt here, but I'm really tired of trying to guess at what you're referring to. Please quote the statement you're responding to if you would like me to respond. It's really not that hard. You can just use quotes if you're not comfortable using the forum's quoting stuff.

Val
Again, Val that is a psotion so nuanced as to have no effect on reailty...probbaly sounds good at parties though.

Reality sometimes demands nuance. Life is not always black and white matters.

Your missing the point---you switched the relative importance of "potential/possibilty" before just the "possibilty" that would save inocent lives was not sufficnt to do it---THEN the "possibilty" that it might cause long term damage to mass murdering terrorist suddenly became suffiecnt reason NOT to do it.

Going to ignore this since without quotes I don't know the context. I also just can't make any sense of this. I don't want to be a stickler for grammar and spelling, but I really could use some punctuation and maybe some extra nouns.

I'm guessing that my response would have to do with the difference between a 1% chance and a 99% chance. Both are a "probability" or a "potential", but they play out very differently in practice. But since I don't know what you're saying, or what you're referring to, I could be wrong and this answer might not be an answer to you at all.

Which is why using a low grade "non" torture method like waterboarding is so justifiable---it does no real harm and its been proven to work---problems solved.

That's just not true.

http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2 ... keller.pdf
"Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder]"

Dr. Allen S. Keller, director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University

And I don't---Unlawfaul combatants have almost NO rights under the Geneva Conventions--and that is on purpose.

Going to ignore this since without quotes I don't know the context.

If you CHOOSE to put on a mask and rig a bomb to kill a school bus full of kids I find it laughable that anyone would find it "important" that you were well treated.

There's a wide gulf between well-treated and not-tortured.

Empathy for terrorist, criminals, child abusers, murderers, despots etc-----THAT they have in endless supply.
Empathy for the VICTEMS of terrorists, criminals, childabusers, murderers, desposts---Now THAT you don't hear much of...other than highly nuanced postions........

I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not true that I don't care about the victims It's too bad that you think that, but I obviously can't make you understand, so I'm done trying to explain for now.

A-So when is saving lives a matter of statistic's---is saving one child not enough?

Everything is a matter of statistics. You're speaking as if torture is guaranteed to save lives. It's not.

B-Since you don't want it done, how can I present a larger sample of a succes rate......see you kind have do a thing in order to have a success rating.

Because there's been plenty of torture in the world for a long time. You don't need absolute proof. Demonstrate somehow that torture has a high chance of gleaning accurate information you couldn't get otherwise. Show me even 50% and I'll be impressed. I still won't be convinced it's right though.

To you, torturing a captured terrorist isn't really a very bad thing. Even if you got no information out of it, it's pretty clear you just don't think it's all that bad.

I'm not sure how to counter this argument, to be honest. If someone doesn't think murder is a very bad crime, how do you convince them it is? I don't have an answer. To me, it's self evident that causing people, even people who have done evil things, enormous pain and misery is bad. In cases of necessity you may have to, but when you have them prisoner it's not necessity.

C-Is capturing one the mastermind of 9/11 a "success" enough for you???
I tend to think that intell that led to the capture of Kalid Sheik Mohammod to be a "succes."

It is a success. It is not a success rate. How many people were tortured for that? How many people are tortured and nothing comes of it? That is how you go from an example of one success to a pattern that shows torture is effective.

I disagree, I presented several perfectly ethical constucts where NOT doing is actually the "immoral" thing do.

Going to ignore this since without quotes I don't know the context.

If you honestly "Wouldn't torture a terrorist to save one life."
Then your not an ethical person at all---a skilled and glib practioner of a sinister brand of moral equivilence perhaps--but deeply lacking in the very "humanity" your demanding of others.

Curses! I'm a sinister, unethical bastard on a crusade to murder puppies and drown kittens. I hate apple pie and grandma, as well. I love to give terrorists hugs and kisses and I never met a Nazi I didn't like. You've seen through me to the core.

Maybe I do believe in moral equivalence, what of it? Given the choice I'd obviously pick an innocent little girl to live over a hardened terrorist. But that's not the kind of choice people get in reality. And no, I'm sorry I don't buy the argument that we're such better people than them that we're justified in torturing or doing just as we please.

We have a moral right to defend ourselves. When you can show that torture is a necessary evil, then I might consider it. On the street, if I knock a man out I'm getting out of there, not hanging around to stomp on his face on the off-chance that other muggers will see it and be intimidated.

You did it again, you keep using Gitmo and "torture" as if they were one and the same---its not even accruate reasoning BTW--which I laid out for you above.

Going to ignore this since without quotes I don't know the context.

I don't Val, I can't see what motivates you, I can only see what you DO

Going to ignore this since without quotes I don't know the context.[/code]

[Kuma-de]

source:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/ ... newssearch

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Coalition forces found 26 bodies buried in mass graves and a bloodstained "torture complex" with chains hanging from walls and ceilings and a bed connected to an electrical system, the military said Wednesday.


Twenty-six bodies were found in mass graves near a "torture complex" discovered by Coalition forces.


The troops were conducting an operation north of Muqdadiya, Iraq, when they made the discovery.

From December 8-11, the troops who found the complex also killed 24 people they said were terrorists and detained 37 suspects, according to a statement issued by Multinational Division North at Camp Speicher in Tikrit.

The moves were part of an operation called Iron Reaper that has been in progress across northern Iraq for the past few weeks.

The complex was in an area thought to be an al Qaeda in Iraq safe haven and operating base, the military said. Iraqis had told the military about the site during an earlier operation.

"Evidence of murder, torture and intimidation against local villagers was found throughout the area," the military statement said.

Ground forces first found what appeared to be a detention facility. As they cleared the area, they found several bodies.

Eventually, 26 bodies were uncovered in mass graves next to what were thought to be execution sites, the military said.

The detention facility was one of three connected to the torture complex, Multinational Division North said. One of the facilities appeared to have served as a headquarters building and a torture facility, it added.


Photos given to the news media show a filthy bed wired to an electrical system, with an outlet hanging from wires on the wall. Other photos show an entrance to the underground bunker and barbed wire stretched outside it.

The operation netted nine weapons caches, which have been destroyed, the military said. They included anti-aircraft weapons, sniper rifles, more than 65 machine guns and pistols, 50 grenades and a surface-to-air missile launcher and platform, the statement said.

Also found were mines, pipe bombs, rocket-propelled grenades, mortar tubes and rounds and 130 pounds of homemade explosives.


Twenty-six bodies were found in mass graves near a "torture complex" discovered by Coalition forces.


A filthy bed wired to an electrical system was found inside the torture complex, the military said.

______________

Now THIS is torture!

[cxt]

Val

Oh, so you want to get rough--ok, I'll play.

I don't mean to be curt either but I'm getting sick of your rampent illogic, poorly thought out positions, poor reasoning and inablity to remain consistant with your own expressed/internal logic

I'm also BTW having no problem what-so-ever following your material you should have no problems following mine......here is a hint--"my" paragraphs and yours link up....course you actually have to take the time to READ them and recall exactly what it is YOU posted.

Like this

"Reality demands nuance"

Then I go "yes, but when you parse things so fine they they are essentially useless outside the classroom its more a case of pyscho/philopsophical masterbation than a meaningful discussion."

I should not have to quote back YOUR OWN POST TO YOU for you to follow it....you wrote/said it you should be able to follow it/recall it.

You say "Life is not always black and white matters"

Then I go---"Really--so you DON'T hold an utterly black and white position on waterboarding/torture and have not be argueing precesily that for PAGES NOW????
So I guess when say "Life is not always black and white" you meant pretty much everything BUT when you contridict yourself????

Grammer whineing Val how pathetic---first you can't keep track of your own posts then you want to whine about grammer, your swtiching on the importance of "potential/possible" is a serious error on your part---and admiting you can't grasp the error is pretty much exactly my point--you simply don't know what your pontificating about.

(Oh, BTW, its not poor grammer, its complex syntax )

Nice study---so when you claimed prior that there were NO SUCH STUDIES---was that a mistake or a lie??

I note that the claims of the first study are not back up by hard data on waterboarding.
In fact, other than the doctors claims NO hard information is presented--other than his opinion....which can be dismissed as biased---the more so since its coming from Media Matters

I honestly don't know what to do with you Val, you refuse to follow the discussion in anything but the most general fashion.

You present links as "proofs" that turn out to be anything but.

As you say "I'm not sure how to counter this arguement"

Which comes as no surprise to me---you have unable to counter ANY of the arguments I've presented.

I'm STILL waiting for the ethical construction where you show exactly why not causeing a terrorist pain is supposed to more important than innocent human life....any chance you can look up somone elses ideas on-line and pass them off as your own----not kosher of course--but it beats waiting for you to present it.

You say "Its a succes but its not a succes rate" and AGAIN I sigh deeply and reply.

A-We don't waterboard very often--which we should be thanked for BTW....so how many incidents would you need to to go from "succes" to "succes rate"

B-Since your opposed to to the very concept of waterboarding how exactly do you suggets we go about getting the data for a "success rate???"

C-Since most of it is still classified, exactly how do you plan on getting historical data????

You can add "intelletcually dishonest" to the the "sinister bastard" line Val---if you don't have the chops to play in the bigs go home and hide under your bed......but refuseing to answer querstions because you can't figure out what the "context is" is weak.

In addition to giving terrorists "hugs and kisses" you probably include flowers, candy and your phone number

As you say and I quote

"Given the choice I 'd obviously pick an innocent little girl over a hardened terrorist."

You would????? Really, but are you not the SAME guy that also said in a prior post--again I quote:

"I wouldn't torture a terrorist to save one life."

So I guess YOU WOULDN"T "pick the little girl after all

Like the guy in Kuma-da article (Ralph Peters, I think) said, refuseing to use every means possible including waterboarding to save innocent life--esp a loved one, does not make you a moral person Val.......it makes you, as he put it, an "abomination."

A classroom pundent that puts his Philosophy 101 notions of ethics ahead of living breathing human beings is deeply lacking the self-same "humanity" that he demands for the treatment of wanton, mass murderers.

Putting their discomfort ahead of innocent human life is abominable Val.

[Kuma-de]

Like the guy in Kuma-da article (Ralph Peters, I think) said, refuseing to use every means possible including waterboarding to save innocent life--esp a loved one, does not make you a moral person Val.......it makes you, as he put it, an "abomination."

A classroom pundent that puts his Philosophy 101 notions of ethics ahead of living breathing human beings is deeply lacking the self-same "humanity" that he demands for the treatment of wanton, mass murderers.

Putting their discomfort ahead of innocent human life is abominable

Very well put. There is theory then there is the real world stuff. I agree with Ralph Peter's, it is an "abomination" but if we want our loved one's to survive, as well as get our troops home, we must fight this as a war to its fullest and not as a school yard fight.

[Bill Glasheen]

Keep the discussion lively.

Keep it respectful as well.

Oh, and all are welcome to comment here. Even and especially the Kiwis, who (in the form of one person) give us at least one "outside" view.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

\
Oh, so you want to get rough--ok, I'll play.

No, I don't. Sorry for critiquing your posting style, but I really couldn't understand what you were saying. Generally I don't mind insults, but having to struggle to understand the writing at the same time just doesn't appeal to me.

Perhaps later I'll feel like resuming this discussion, but for now I'm going to enjoy my holiday. CXT (and everyone else too), I wish you well and hope you have an enjoyable holiday too.