Text 11939, 102 rader
Skriven 2009-06-11 00:33:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Earl Croasmun
Ärende: Re-examining Torture
============================
~>>  Further, I downloaded the Bybee Memo, which was the legal basis
~>>  for waterboarding Zubaydah, and the description of waterboarding
~>>  in that does *NOT* involve plastic wrap

 EC> That is pretty funny that you would refer to the 2002 memo
 EC> from BEFORE it was used, and yet you IGNORE the part that
 EC> describes the FUNCTION of the cloth: "The individual does
 EC> not breathe any water into his lungs."  And you ignore the

 So "F"ing what? Did I say he did? I said Neilsen described
 waterboarding the same as was used by US interrogators under
 Bush.

 EC> ABC News reports based on interviews with current and past
 EC> interrogators including the people who DID interrogate
 EC> Zubaydah: "Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face
 EC> and water is poured over him."  Nothing but a pointless
 EC> quibble that didn't land.

 Your arguement was just a pointless quibble that didn't land.
 First because you did not give links to your sources, so I can't
 verify that they are true. You accuse others of making things up
 so much it's probably to cover for the fact that you do exactly
 that.

 Second because I have never heard of using cellophane from
 anyone until you said it. I did find some of the ABC reports,
 and none of them gave any actual details of interrogations.

 I did find reports of Abu Zubaydah that said they used
 cellophane, but that's not what the Zybee memo says. Further,
 some of those reports said he was waterboarded in Spring of 2002
 when he refused to cooperate, but the FBI agent who interrogated
 him after capture said he started talking within hours. And the
 torture did not start until Aug 2002. The Bybee memo
 specifically references Zubaydah, and is the response to the
 request to "harshly interrogate" him, and is dated Aug 1 2002.

 They also say he broke in 35 seconds. Whereas he was actually
 waterboarded at least 83 times, and the source was supposedly
 the leader of the team that captured him, but when he was
 confronted with the fact of the 83 waterboardings said he got
 his info second hand, he wasn't there.

 So, it appears your info is full of BS. Oh, and the Bybee memo
 says the CIA informed him it would use a cloth, not cellophane.

~>>  Further, contrary to your pretension, the waterboarding is not
~>>  just done with a canteen cup, but can be done with a watering
~>>  can.

 EC> Another parody of a response.  You dishonestly slip in a
 EC> word that I did not use -- "just" -- in an attempt to
 EC> refute something I didn't say.  And then you dishonestly
 EC> OMIT  a word from the Bybee memo in an attempt to make the
 EC> difference between "cup" and "can" look greater: what he
 EC> said was a "SMALL watering can!"

 Another parody of a response from you. You dishonestly suggest I
 "slip"ped in a word, when I just plain outright used the word to
 describe what you said. Do you understand the meaning of
 describing what you said?

 Then you claim I omited a word to make the difference look
 greater, when neither matters. The bybee memo says the
 waterboarding would be in 20 to 40 second increments, with 3 to
 4 full breaths, then repeated up to 20 minutes. That's easily 10
 to 20 repetitions. Which means the size of the container is
 irrelevant as it will have to be constantly refilled. Water is
 constantly poured over him during the 20 to 40 second period.
 How long does it take to empty a canteen cup?

~>>  Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics knows the impact of the
~>>  water does not depend on the container or the quantity, but the
~>>  height from which it is poured.

 EC> Anyone, ANYONE, ought to understand the difference between
 EC> a cup of water poured over cellophane with none ingested
 EC> versus a gallon pitcher being poured INTO an open mouth and
 EC> nose.  And the difference has nothing to do with the HEIGHT
 EC> from which it is poured, so you are rambling more wildly
 EC> that usual.

 Since the memo said cloth, not cellophane, your point is off
 target anyway. And since I did say they did pour it into his
 open mouth and nose, your false accusation is more obvious. As
 to the rest, if the impact is not at issue, then what
 difference does it make if it's a cup, a watering can, a gallon
 picture, or a hose going to the atlantic ocean?

 You try to evade and dodge, when all I did was offer a
 correction to your previous posts. I notice you have abandoned
 your claim that the japanese pumped people full of water as
 their method of waterboarding, which was the issue.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)