Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: crockett on December 17, 2007, 11:31:59 PM
-
You guys read this yet? A jet that has a known history of transporting prisoners by the CIA to Gitmo in Cuba crashed in Mexico. On board was reported to be around 4 tons of cocaine.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/12/19210/608/933/420107
(http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z266/danos714/plano3.jpg)
The jet seems to have a shady sale history shortly before the crash and the new owners are also linked to the CIA.
So has Bush started his coke habit again or is it the CIA selling drugs once again to fiance their war in south America? Among the other strange things that happened and the reason it crashed, was because they planned to refuel in Mexico but were turned away my the Mexican military. The plane ran out of fuel and had to ditch in the jungle on it's way back to the good ole USA loaded with coke.
-
Bill Clinton sucks!!!!
-
Mexico turning away illegal drugs...
Rrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
-
I wonder where Ollie North is?
-
Originally posted by rpm
I wonder where Ollie North is?
with your wife.
-
This and more on the next episode of 24[/b].
-
Originally posted by rpm
I wonder where Ollie North is?
I have no recollection:D
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
with your wife.
You win the thread, dude. Game over. Game over, man. Ahem. ;)
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
with your wife.
wow man..... wow
-
Arlo, go check the Aircraft & Vehicles forum...
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You win the thread, dude. Game over. Game over, man. Ahem. ;)
post slut!!!!:furious
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Mexico turning away illegal drugs...
Rrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Funny you say that.. :D
It was originally reported to have 7 tons of coke and 1 ton of Heron. The tonnage kept getting re reported until there was zero Heron and something like 3.7 tons of coke.
Read the article.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Arlo, go check the Aircraft & Vehicles forum...
Let me guess. B-29 nook?
Why don't we have the FWX-2029-p7x7n hyper-rocket variant of the uber jet interceptor there was half a drawing of found in a bunker by the Swiss ten years after Hitler gave head to his favorite luger?
:(
-
Originally posted by Slash27
post slut!!!!:furious
I've done worse. :D
-
Originally posted by crockett
Funny you say that.. :D
It was originally reported to have 7 tons of coke and 1 ton of Heron. The tonnage kept getting re reported until there was zero Heron and something like 3.7 tons of coke.
Read the article.
That a freon alternative?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I've done worse. :D
Concho told me:(
-
LOL :D
-
CIA torture jet!!:noid Oh noes!
Did it spout Chemtrails anytime before the crash?:rofl
-
Anything that states that Gitmo is a "Torture chamber" obviously isn't a prime candidate for factual reporting of a story.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by crockett
blah blah blah!
CIA torture jet?
The CIA was transporting the drugs?
Oh wait, you think the Daily KOS is in it for honesty and truth. Seriously, does it make you feel superior spitting propaganda? Do you really think that being the worst of what you are accusing others of being makes the smug arrogance worth it? The ends certainly justify the means right?
-
Coke is a highly valued tender.
Don`t know what would be newsy or earth shattering about that.
I just can`t figure out the Heron thing as mentioned above though.
Why would they be transporting all them birds?
:D
-
Originally posted by crockett
7 tons of coke and 1 ton of Heron. The tonnage kept getting re reported until there was zero Heron and something like 3.7 tons of coke.
so it wasnt the cocaine that mexico turned away, but the downright disgraceful heron smuggling :mad:
(http://www.humboldt.net/~tracker/heron2.gif)
-
save the herons
-
crock-it.. thanks... who even knew these far left corners of the internet even existed!
lazs
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Anything that states that Gitmo is a "Torture chamber" obviously isn't a prime candidate for factual reporting of a story.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/11/2115592.htm
I guess you don't consider this torture though. (http://forums.desert-winds.org/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif)
-
Keep in mind, though, that the website that story is appearing on also believes Nancy Pelosi to be a right-winger, in bed with Bush.
A legitimate reporter investigated their claims, and came up with the following:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/12/15/drug-running-jet-becomes-cia-torture-plane-in-the-blink-of-an-eye/
Now you can see why all of the mainstream press are not reporting this story. It is bogus.
SIG 220
-
That was NOT a CIA jet. It was a jet owned by a sleeze ball South lorida charter operator who had a history of running sleeze ball south florida charter operations.
As it happens a friend of mine who used to work line service down at FXE put a lot of fuel into the airplane in his time in addition to knowing at least one of the pilots on board. It's been a while since we talked about it as IIRC this was back in the late summer/fall when the accident happened.
It's not hard to run a G-II out of fuel if you're flying it down in the weeds attempting to avoid radar (http://forums.propilotworld.com/images/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif)
-
Originally posted by Viking
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/11/2115592.htm
I guess you don't consider this torture though. (http://forums.desert-winds.org/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif)
They cut our heads off with a knife and we pour some water on their face....Oh dear..what are we thinking?
-
So simulated drowning is not torture because the enemy does even worse things? Your logic is astounding. (http://forums.desert-winds.org/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif)
-
I don't care if it islabeled torture.
If I was standing with one foot on your wife's head and a knife in one hand and you had 10 minutes to get my social security number...you wouldn't want to pour some water on my head if it was a known technique of extracting information.??? We should start a new thread instead of hijacking.
-
Ah, and now comes the standard attempt at rationalization. Look in the mirror bud ... what you see there is a guy with a turban holding a knife.
-
:rofl
Remind me not to take you on my fireteam. You can stay home and knit.
And you didn't answer the ?
-
Lol your "fireteam"?. "War criminal team" you mean.
As for your question; it is pointless. I can rationalize anything, torture, murder, genocide. It doesn't make it right.
-
Still refuse to answer it. NO MORE DISCUSSION WITH YOU.....YOU COME BACK 1 YEAR!
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
That would not be civilized of me so I'll refrain from doing so.
-
That aircraft belongs to Donna Blue Aircraft Inc out of Coconut Creek, FL. http://donnablueaircraft.com/index.html As much as I don't like to agree with Golfer, this is a sleazy company. There are a lot of people that say this company is a front for the CIA. Except this is a really sloppy job if this is a front. So I don't buy that whole "CIA front" business.
My question is; who owns this plane? The owners of DBA can't be found. The office of DBA is empty. There is a jet that until it went down was a regular flier all over the US. No answers bothers me. However, I am far from going conspiracy theory and claiming the CIA/DEA had anything to do with this. If they want heroin they don't have to go to Mexico to get it. They can have all they want in Afghanistan.
N987SA Flight Status
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m24/Jameswells26/BMSHQXMF.jpg)
-
Originally posted by BBBB
As much as I don't like to agree with Golfer
(http://forums.propilotworld.com/images/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif)
I tell you something you didn't want to hear?
Here's a snippet from back when the crash happened:
MEXICO CITY – The four tons of cocaine found aboard a U.S.-registered business jet that crashed in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula on Monday belonged to Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, Mexico’s most notorious drug trafficker, Mexican authorities said Friday. The business jet that was transporting the dope to Mexico from Colombia was purchased just a week before the crash by a U.S. pilot with a history of legal and financial problems in Florida, interviews and official records indicate, but whether the pilot still owned the plane at the time of its crash is unknown.
The complex sale of the Gulfstream II jet and its end in the Mexican jungle highlight the increasingly complicated illicit drug trade. A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said the trade generates as much as $23 billion a year for Mexico-based drug cartels.
U.S. authorities say as much as 90 percent of the cocaine sold in the U.S. is shipped through Mexico.
At least three suspects, including a Mexican pilot, are in Mexican custody. Mexican authorities say two of the men offered them money if they would give back the cocaine and release any crew members.
The Gulfstream II departed Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Sept. 18. In the days between then and the plane’s crash, it apparently flew to Mexico, then to Colombia and was on its way back to Mexico when Mexican anti-drug aircraft intercepted it.
ROBIN HOOD-LIKE FIGURE
Guzman has acquired an almost mythical status in Mexico. After breaking out of jail in 2001, he has repeatedly eluded capture and is revered in some parts of the impoverished nation as a Robin Hood figure who distributes some of his ill-gotten gains to the poor.
How the U.S.-registered Gulfstream ended up in the hands of Guzman’s violent Sinaloa Cartel isn’t clear.
A bill of sale obtained by McClatchy Newspapers indicates that Florida pilot Clyde O’Connor bought the plane Sept. 16 – eight days before it went down in the Yucatan jungle. Another Florida pilot, identified by his license number and signature as Greg Smith, also signed the document, but his relationship to O’Connor isn’t detailed.
According to electronic court records, O’Connor, 42, was found guilty of criminal safety violations – described as “improper/insufficient safety equipment or lights” – in 2001. Records also show two bankruptcy filings, one in 1997 and another in 1998.
Ten years later, his financial problems apparently had abated.
Two Brazilians – the last registered owners of the plane – said O’Connor wired them $2 million to purchase the business jet earlier this month.
The Brazilians provided McClatchy with the bill of sale, but the Federal Aviation Administration said it hadn’t received the change-of-ownership paperwork.
Attempts to reach O’Connor and Smith weren’t successful; the listed phone number for one of O’Connor’s companies, Execstar Aviation in Fort Lauderdale, was disconnected.
PLANE’S PRICE NEGOTIATED
Interviewed by phone from the Brazilian city of Sao Paulo, one of the Brazilians, Joao Luiz Malago, said Friday that O’Connor and Smith had told him they planned to resell the aircraft. The FAA confirmed that the two men are licensed Florida pilots in good standing.
Malago said O’Connor struck a hard bargain, negotiating him down from a desired sale price of $2.3 million to $2 million.
“This guy was a pain,” said Malago. “Finally we got to a point that we found a good number for me and for him was $2 million.”
Clyde O'Connor = Execstar. Defunct 135 operator from Lauderdale Executive that was actually shut down by their FSDO. A feat in and of itself. IRS and Tax issues surrounded them too...lovely fellows.
-
Waterboarding is simulated torture. Im ok with simulated torture. Real brutal physical torture is not acceptable.
go to liveleak and watch some of those men of Allah slice peoples heads off while they scream and bleed to death and then come here and whine about simulated torture.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I would not torture you ... I would kill you. In that situation that would be the quickest and best resolution to my problem.
Actually those that are cutting peoples heads off are more civilized than you guys who condone torture. I hope you get what's coming to you.
Gscholtz just mad half his terrorist buddies can't make the office Xmas
party from Gitmo.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Waterboarding is simulated torture. Im ok with simulated torture. Real brutal physical torture is not acceptable.
go to liveleak and watch some of those men of Allah slice peoples heads off while they scream and bleed to death and then come here and whine about simulated torture.
"Simulated torture" lol nice spin there Yeager. I guess Chinese water torture isn't torture either since it isn't brutal in any way. Waterboarding is simulated drowning. The torture is very real.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Waterboarding is simulated torture.
There is no such thing as simulated torture. Just like there is no such thing as simulated pain .... or death. Torture is torture. Let me take you waterboarding someday. We'll both have a blast. ;)
-
Originally posted by BBBB
That aircraft belongs to Donna Blue Aircraft Inc out of Coconut Creek, FL. http://donnablueaircraft.com/index.html As much as I don't like to agree with Golfer, this is a sleazy company. There are a lot of people that say this company is a front for the CIA. Except this is a really sloppy job if this is a front. So I don't buy that whole "CIA front" business.
My question is; who owns this plane? The owners of DBA can't be found. The office of DBA is empty. There is a jet that until it went down was a regular flier all over the US. No answers bothers me. However, I am far from going conspiracy theory and claiming the CIA/DEA had anything to do with this. If they want heroin they don't have to go to Mexico to get it. They can have all they want in Afghanistan.
N987SA Flight Status
That's pretty much what the article I posted said. That's what brings it all into question in regards to the CIA involvement. This plane has been identified in the lawsuit against the US govt in regards to whats going on at GitMo in Cuba. The plane has been used in the past by the CIA to ferry detainees to Cuba.
Now if the Chatter service is a front for the CIA who knows, but I believe one or both of the owners did have links to the US govt. Then you have the shady sale and no records until after the crash. So there are a lot of things that don't add up here.
The CIA has a history of this kinda stuff and has a well known history of being involved in drug smuggling in the past. So with the fact that they "have" done it before and have been caught, well it's not that big of a stretch to link them into this.
Now on the other hand, maybe they aren't involved and had only chartered the jet at one point to carry some prisoners.
One thing is for certian we do have stuff going on under the radar in south America. Back before 9/11 I had a pretty good connection through a job I used to have and a family friend. If I would have been able to get into pilot training via the US army reserves, I was going to end up working as a pilot for a private company. This company did work for the US govt in south America. Some of their work was on the up and up and some of it was on the down low.
I do know for a fact that we have stuff going on in South America and I wouldn't put it past the CIA to run drugs to fund some of these black programs. After all they have done it in the past.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Keep in mind, though, that the website that story is appearing on also believes Nancy Pelosi to be a right-winger, in bed with Bush.
A legitimate reporter investigated their claims, and came up with the following:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/12/15/drug-running-jet-becomes-cia-torture-plane-in-the-blink-of-an-eye/
Now you can see why all of the mainstream press are not reporting this story. It is bogus.
SIG 220
How anyone could consider mensnewsdaily as a legit is beyond me.. They 100% worse than Fox news. MND is nothing more than a outlet for the Religious Right to pretend to cover news and push their own slanted views.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I would not torture you ... I would kill you. In that situation that would be the quickest and best resolution to my problem.
Actually those that are cutting peoples heads off are more civilized than you guys who condone torture. I hope you get what's coming to you.
Wow....thats really all that can be said.....Wow
-
Waterboarding is no worse than reading some of the posts in this forum.
-
Originally posted by crockett
or is it the CIA selling drugs once again to fiance their war in south America?
When did they stop?
-
Originally posted by crockett
Funny you say that.. :D
It was originally reported to have 7 tons of coke and 1 ton of Heron. The tonnage kept getting re reported until there was zero Heron and something like 3.7 tons of coke.
Read the article.
1 ton of Heron? That's a chitload of (http://www.birdingintaiwan.com/Gray%20Heron.jpg)
-
So, if the CIA did charter a jet once, does that mean by default the CIA is then responsible for all activities the jet leasing company does in the future, legal or illegal?
If you rent a car from Hertz while on a trip, are you then responsible for anything illegal that should happen with that car in the future?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Waterboarding is no worse than reading some of the posts in this forum.
And the number of times you've experienced waterboarding would be? Get creative. ;)
-
Originally posted by Dago
So, if the CIA did charter a jet once, does that mean by default the CIA is then responsible for all activities the jet leasing company does in the future, legal or illegal?
If you rent a car from Hertz while on a trip, are you then responsible for anything illegal that should happen with that car in the future?
:rolleyes:
No but lets get real here.. I'm pretty sure the CIA isn't just going to go rent a jet from someone whom they don't have a clue about. To then transport prisoners whom are supposedly so dangerous they they can destroy our freedoms.
If you rent a car from Hertz if it does happen to break down, it's pretty unlikely that it will result in a crash in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.
So considering the risks involved I'd bet, the CIA most likely had a fairly reasonable understanding of whom owned and operated the jet when they used it.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
And the number of times you've experienced waterboarding would be? Get creative. ;)
Many times
(http://www.visitidaho.org/assets/photos/hires/CascadeWaterski2.jpg)
Not me though
-
I've been kind of outta the loop for awhile so to speak. So how do I go about scoring some of that heron stuff? How do I ingest it for best results? Any side effects to be aware of?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Many times
(http://www.visitidaho.org/assets/photos/hires/CascadeWaterski2.jpg)
Not me though
Ahhhh .... opinion without actual experience. Noted as. ;)
I find the alternative "black and white ... no, now it's grey" moral judgement of some political spheres a bit too convenient for their own purpose. Prior to the Bush administration there was no question about what was right or wrong when it came to our own practices regarding torture and the Geneva convention (which we never felt prone to openly and proudly discard at a whim). We certainly didn't try to excuse lowering our standards by comparing them to the enemy's. The UCMJ made it most clear how we were supposed to keep our standards above a certain level. CIA kept their dirt in the dark (and apparently they were better at it then).
I know what right is and, unfortunately (and ironically), there's quite a few on the right who may claim so but they're not very good at proving it. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Ahhhh .... opinion without actual experience. Noted as. ;)
Ahhhh .... humor impaired. Noted.
-
If it was a good joke it would have been appreciated as such. Keep working on that. :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
If it was a good joke it would have been appreciated as such. Keep working on that. :aok
Stop, I'm drowning.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Stop, I'm stupid.
Fixed. :D
-
Hmmmm ... I don't see you laughing. Ahem. :D
-
Some people don't know funny when they're submerged in it.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Ahhhh .... opinion without actual experience. Noted as. ;)
I find the alternative "black and white ... no, now it's grey" moral judgement of some political spheres a bit too convenient for their own purpose. Prior to the Bush administration there was no question about what was right or wrong when it came to our own practices regarding torture and the Geneva convention (which we never felt prone to openly and proudly discard at a whim). We certainly didn't try to excuse lowering our standards by comparing them to the enemy's. The UCMJ made it most clear how we were supposed to keep our standards above a certain level. CIA kept their dirt in the dark (and apparently they were better at it then).
I know what right is and, unfortunately (and ironically), there's quite a few on the right who may claim so but they're not very good at proving it. ;)
Hi Arlo :)
Would you say that before the Bush whitehouse that things were a bit differant in regards to terror? Just wondering :)
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Wow....thats really all that can be said.....Wow
Angry little putz isnt he.:D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Some people don't know funny when they're submerged in it.
Ain't that the truth. Keep stroking. Ahem.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Angry little putz isnt he.:D
Bro, That maybe the understatment of the year:lol
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Hi Arlo :)
Would you say that before the Bush whitehouse that things were a bit differant in regards to terror? Just wondering :)
The only difference was they finally succeeded in bringing down the towers under W's watch. Other than that, I suppose the GWOT did help increase terrorist recruitment. Neither of which excuses us remolding ourselves in *their* image in any way shape or form. Of course I suppose we can spread democracy by force (how does that work, again?). Think about it. :(
-
Originally posted by Arlo
The only difference was they finally succeeded in bringing down the towers under W's watch. Other than that, I suppose the GWOT did help increase terrorist recruitment. Neither of which excuses us remolding ourselves in *their* image in any way shape or form. Of course I suppose we can spread democracy by force (how does that work, again?). Think about it. :(
I have thought about it. Many many times. I appreciate your answer. Thanks
-
Yep, just had my "freedoms" destroyed the other day crock-full-of-it..damn government gave me a speeding ticket! :mad:
:rofl
-
Originally posted by RedTop
I have thought about it. Many many times. I appreciate your answer. Thanks
And I respect your pov. I'm all for dealing with terrorists. And, though there are friends of mine with differing opinion, I'm sure we all want it done right.
-
Originally posted by crockett
No but lets get real here.. I'm pretty sure the CIA isn't just going to go rent a jet from someone whom they don't have a clue about. To then transport prisoners whom are supposedly so dangerous they they can destroy our freedoms.
If you rent a car from Hertz if it does happen to break down, it's pretty unlikely that it will result in a crash in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.
So considering the risks involved I'd bet, the CIA most likely had a fairly reasonable understanding of whom owned and operated the jet when they used it.
Seems to me you are making a lot of assumptions based on your knowledge of Tom Clancy novels more than real life experience or fact.
Making assumptions based on zero real life experience in any situation is pretty close to worthless.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
1 ton of Heron? That's a chitload of (http://www.birdingintaiwan.com/Gray%20Heron.jpg)
I beat you on page 1. Haw haw!
Save the Herons from the CIA!
Originally posted by Furball
so it wasnt the cocaine that mexico turned away, but the downright disgraceful heron smuggling :mad:
(http://www.humboldt.net/~tracker/heron2.gif)
-
Originally posted by Dago
Seems to me you are making a lot of assumptions based on your knowledge of Tom Clancy novels more than real life experience or fact.
Making assumptions based on zero real life experience in any situation is pretty close to worthless.
Maybe you should re-read my posts above and quit making assumptions yourself.
-
water boarding appears to be torture to me. I don't believe that governments should be allowed to torture people.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
water boarding appears to be torture to me. I don't believe that governments should be allowed to torture people.
lazs
Don't sneak around shooting at our soldiers or plot to blow up civilians and you probably won't be.
-
I just can`t get this bird thing out of my mind.
Did the Herons survive?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
water boarding appears to be torture to me. I don't believe that governments should be allowed to torture people.
lazs
You gonna get upset if we agree on this? :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Don't sneak around shooting at our soldiers or plot to blow up civilians and you probably won't be.
Not good excusin'. Not reasonable rationale. Sorry. :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
water boarding appears to be torture to me. I don't believe that governments should be allowed to torture people.
lazs
I think Al Gore has taken over Larz's computer via the Internets.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Concho told me:(
did you tell him what you were doing when I told you?
-
Originally posted by Furball
so it wasnt the cocaine that mexico turned away, but the downright disgraceful heron smuggling :mad:
(http://www.humboldt.net/~tracker/heron2.gif)
ACK!!! NOT WORK SAFE!!!!111!!!!!!!!!111!!
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
did you tell him what you were doing when I told you?
Sitting on your lap and giving you his Christmas gift request? (Well, it *is* the holiday season.) :D
-
i'm not one to kiss and tell..........
-
Officer and gentleman .... in public. ;)
-
Originally posted by crockett CIA jet crashes with 4 tons coke onboard
Thats a LOT of soda :rofl
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
i'm not one to kiss and tell..........
Then why is Duke not speaking to you?
-
In an ABC American interview aired on Monday (local time), retired agent John Kiriakou, who led a CIA team that captured and interrogated Al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, said using the "waterboarding" technique was necessary and yielded crucial information.
Mr Kiriakou said the method broke Zubaydah - one of the first top Al Qaeda suspects captured after the September 11, 2001 attacks - in less than 35 seconds, according to ABC.
"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," Mr Kiriakou told ABC News.
"From that day on, he answered every question," he added. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."
Works for me :aok
I could care less they waterboarded this "suspect". He had information. We needed it. If they would just nicely answer the questions asked of them there would be no need for any type of "persuasion".
I am sure if they had one of our boys who would not give them information they needed he would be treated with the utmost respect and compassion.
If such treatment of these suspect provides information that saves lives then do what you have to do to get the information.
Its mind over matter. I dont mind because they dont matter.
-
arlo and crock-it. if you are surprised by my stance on torture and governments power in general then it simply means that you have not been paying attention.
To agree or not on torture is not a political stance.. it is something that crosses all political lines. I have seen the most liberal socialists in the world here say that this bad guy or that should be subjected to the worst tortures (killing too goof for em!)...
I am in favor of lethal injection... now.. on a personal level.. under the right circumstances.. If I needed to know something to help one of mine... I might just get real medievel on someone. Governments are different tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by sgt203
Its mind over matter. I dont mind because they dont matter.
Cause having standards doesn't require exemplifying them anymore. Thank you W. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo and crock-it. if you are surprised by my stance on torture and governments power in general then it simply means that you have not been paying attention.
You're so misunderstood. But you understand everyone else in an almost supernatural way. Sympathies on the first and the second greatly impresses me. :D
But .... glad you don't see torture as acceptable through rationalization. :cool:
-
US troops just found a torture house in Iraq, it had a steel bed frame wired to a electrical outlet, rubber hoses, bloody knives, chains on the wall, and a mass grave out back with bodies in it, but i doubt it was a real torture house like gitmo because they did not find any water boards or even snow boards.
-
Originally posted by john9001
US troops just found a torture house in Iraq, it had a steel bed frame wired to a electrical outlet, rubber hoses, bloody knives, chains on the wall, and a mass grave out back with bodies in it, but i doubt it was a real torture house like gitmo because they did not find any water boards or even snow boards.
Because standards are allowed to drop when theirs drop lower. That's how it's always been. Ahem. Brilliance in action. john tried to make a funnay and win the thread in a last ditch effort. I say this requires an instant replay judgement by the refs. :cool: :aok
-
arlo, it was in the news.
-
Originally posted by john9001
arlo, it was in the news.
Holy crap! That makes your post sensible and teh funnay now! I'm hoping the refs call it a win for ya. :D :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Cause having standards doesn't require exemplifying them anymore. Thank you W. :D
'
If was a choice between using waterboarding on a known terrorist and the life your loved on (wife? children?) would you still take the moral high ground.
IE, say your family was trapped in a house, with a bomb ticking away, they couldn't be evacuated without first disarmed the bomb. And the only way to disarm it was with a 6 digit code (and if you brute forced the code the bomb would detonate). But the bomber had been captured, but was refusing to disclose the code, would you then condone water boarding if it guaranteed the result desired?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
'
If was a choice between using waterboarding on a known terrorist and the life your loved on (wife? children?) would you still take the moral high ground.
IE, say your family was trapped in a house, with a bomb ticking away, they couldn't be evacuated without first disarmed the bomb. And the only way to disarm it was with a 6 digit code (and if you brute forced the code the bomb would detonate). But the bomber had been captured, but was refusing to disclose the code, would you then condone water boarding if it guaranteed the result desired?
He probably would but he would be too late to help.
The great white horse he is riding upon would never make it there in time from the moral high ground:D :aok
-
arlo.. was not claiming to be missunderstood in any supernatural or touchy feely way.. I was just pointing out that you are not paying attention to simple words. I have explained my thoughts on torture many times in the past. if you felt you had to use your intuition... it just means that you are unable to process simple information.
Most people have no problem at all understanding me. I am pretty clear most all of the time.
The same goes for you.. you are not near as complex as you would like us to think.. at least not on the simple things like your political leanings. You have not surprised me lately and I doubt that you surprise anyone else who simply reads what you write.
course.. you could be fibbin'.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
'
If was a choice between using waterboarding on a known terrorist and the life your loved on (wife? children?) would you still take the moral high ground.
IE, say your family was trapped in a house, with a bomb ticking away, they couldn't be evacuated without first disarmed the bomb. And the only way to disarm it was with a 6 digit code (and if you brute forced the code the bomb would detonate). But the bomber had been captured, but was refusing to disclose the code, would you then condone water boarding if it guaranteed the result desired?
That's why police officers, judges and other officers of government are not allowed to be involved in cases that are personal to them. You and others here are constantly trying to make this a personal matter; "what if your wife...", "what if your family..." - I would do anything to save my family, but that's beside the point because we're NOT talking about my family and me, we're talking about government agents legally using torture to obtain information.
If you had just admitted to my face that you had raped and killed my daughter, I would kill you where you stand. It is a natural response ... but should we therefore allow our agents of government to arbitrarily murder people?
I don't think so.
-
Guess the CIA will be drinking Pepsi at their Christmas party
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
'
If was a choice between using waterboarding on a known terrorist and the life your loved on (wife? children?) would you still take the moral high ground.
IE, say your family was trapped in a house, with a bomb ticking away, they couldn't be evacuated without first disarmed the bomb. And the only way to disarm it was with a 6 digit code (and if you brute forced the code the bomb would detonate). But the bomber had been captured, but was refusing to disclose the code, would you then condone water boarding if it guaranteed the result desired?
Sorry. Not one example of waterboarding being required to avoid a situation like on the T.V. show "24" has ever been offered up by the administration to justify exceptions to the standards against torture the U.S. has supported since ... well ... pretty much the formation of the nation.
But if the rationalization makes you feel better, keep watching the show and using it to form your political opinions.
;) :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. was not claiming to be missunderstood in any supernatural or touchy feely way.. I was just pointing out that you are not paying attention to simple words.
Or simple minds? Ok. You're in the running for winning the entire forum, dude. :D
-
rip an paste time.
<
All that changed -- and Zubayda reportedly had a divine revelation -- after 30 to 35 seconds of waterboarding, Kiriakou said he learned from the CIA agents who performed the technique.
The terror suspect, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly gave up information that indirectly led to the the 2003 raid in Pakistan yielding the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an alleged planner of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Kiriakou said.
The CIA was unaware of Mohammed's stature before the Abu Zubayda interrogation, the former agent said.
"Abu Zubayda's the one who told us that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was so important in the al Qaeda structure, and we didn't realize at the time how important he was," Kiriakou said.
Abu Zubayda also divulged information on "al Qaeda's leadership structure and mentioned people who we really didn't have any familiarization with [and] told us who we should be thinking about, who we should be looking at, and who was important in the organization so we were able to focus our investigation this way," Kiriakou said.
Abu Zubayda reportedly told the agent who waterboarded him that "Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate because it would make it easier on the other brothers who had been captured," Kiriakou said.
Though the information wrenched from Abu Zubayda "stopped terrorist attacks and saved lives," Kiriakou said he opposes waterboarding.
>>
"stopped terrorist attacks and saved lives,"
-
Originally posted by Viking
That's why police officers, judges and other officers of government are not allowed to be involved in cases that are personal to them. You and others here are constantly trying to make this a personal matter; "what if your wife...", "what if your family..." - I would do anything to save my family, but that's beside the point because we're NOT talking about my family and me, we're talking about government agents legally using torture to obtain information.
If you had just admitted to my face that you had raped and killed my daughter, I would kill you where you stand. It is a natural response ... but should we therefore allow our agents of government to arbitrarily murder people?
I don't think so.
I dont think we should allow our government agents to ARBITRARILY MURDER people either. That is a far stretch from waterboarding.
However you have to understand that most of these terrorists are religious zealots who are not going to voluntarily give you information out of the goodness of their hearts. They are going to have to be persuaded to give the information you seek.
It is a personal matter to some mother, father, brother or sister out there who may be the next target.To say that is beside the point because it does not personally involve you, but then to say should it you would do whatever it takes to protect your family is slightly hypocritical. That is exactly what is being done here. They do not have to specifically protect your family but every family all over the world.
There needs to be some control over what can and cannot be used to obtain information and it needs to be kept secret ( not that that is ever possible these days).
Bin Laden knows what terrorist plans, hiding places, training spots are and should we ever catch him should we not get that information, even if it involves having to use some sort of force to get it.
His last big attack caused the deaths of over 3000 American Civilians, men, women and children. His networks world wide body count is much much higher than that. He and his followers have long ago removed themselves from the laws and acceptance of the civilized world. Yet we should provide them the protections of the civilized world once they are drawn back into it against their will???
Do we strap electrodes to their testicles, cut and mutlilate them with knives, break bones etc etc etc... NO even in my opinion that goes far beyond the realm of acceptable.
However Sleep deprivation, waterboarding,and the use of complete isolation are not in my opinion Torture.
These government agents job is to protect you, your family, our soldiers home and abroad, and every civilian of every country all over the world who may for whatever reason may be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
To allow a person who has, in my opinion, removed themselves from the laws of civilized mankind to withhold information that may save the life of someones Mother , father or brother or sister out of political correctness is absurd.
That is why I dont mind and why they dont matter.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Sorry. Not one example of waterboarding being required to avoid a situation like on the T.V. show "24" has ever been offered up by the administration to justify exceptions to the standards against torture the U.S. has supported since ... well ... pretty much the formation of the nation.
But if the rationalization makes you feel better, keep watching the show and using it to form your political opinions.
;) :aok
OK he used a bomb for an example... So you focus on that but refuse to see where it has worked and has saved lives. Are these lives less important because they were not your family.
How about this stick your head in the sand, play ostrich and use that to support your political opinions and views.
There is no need to rationalize anything here. It has provided information, it has saved lives.
-
It's a never ending fight. There are those who strive, and will not stop, until they have eliminated every penalty for any wrong doing. I'm not in favor of inflicting pain on anyone but some of the stronger among us sometimes have to do the distasteful to protect the sheep from wholesale slaughter.
-
Waterboarding are for the ones the CIA can stomach to torture - they give the others to the Syrians, and Egyptians to properly torture for them...
Tronsky
-
disclaimer: no terrorists were injured in the filming of the water boarding.
-
Originally posted by sgt203
How about this stick your head in the sand, play ostrich and use that to support your political opinions and views.
I appreciate the suggestion but I've found Vulcan's method not to my liking. "24" scenarios are quite exciting. Using them to look for moral loopholes in my thinking, however, has nothing to do with reality. :aok
:D
-
Sgt203, thank you for your objective and honest addition to this debate. I have taken excerpts from your eloquently worded post and grouped them together with excerpts that are, in my opinion, of similar concepts and values.
Originally posted by sgt203
However you have to understand that most of these terrorists are religious zealots who are not going to voluntarily give you information out of the goodness of their hearts. They are going to have to be persuaded to give the information you seek.
Originally posted by sgt203
To allow a person who has, in my opinion, removed themselves from the laws of civilized mankind to withhold information that may save the life of someones Mother , father or brother or sister out of political correctness is absurd.
Originally posted by sgt203
However Sleep deprivation, waterboarding,and the use of complete isolation are not in my opinion Torture.
Most criminals will not offer information willingly. Are you of the opinion that the police should be allowed to use water torture (waterboarding for those who condone rationalizing pseudonyms) to obtain information from all criminals? If not, then why? If it’s not torture why not allow all law enforcement to use these effective techniques in their investigations?
Would you consider it acceptable if a foreign power used water torture on US citizens? If not, why?
And just so we’re all agreed on what water torture (waterboarding) really is:
“Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.”
Originally posted by sgt203
There needs to be some control over what can and cannot be used to obtain information and it needs to be kept secret ( not that that is ever possible these days).
To me that seems like an oxymoron. How can secrecy be maintained while still having control? And by control I assume you mean civilian oversight. Government secrecy is in the end an enemy of democracy and freedom.
Originally posted by sgt203
Bin Laden knows what terrorist plans, hiding places, training spots are and should we ever catch him should we not get that information, even if it involves having to use some sort of force to get it.
Originally posted by sgt203
Do we strap electrodes to their testicles, cut and mutlilate them with knives, break bones etc etc etc... NO even in my opinion that goes far beyond the realm of acceptable.
Why? If you are willing to use force against Bin Laden why not go all the way? While breaking bones and mutilations are less effective forms of torture I do not get this hesitation to use all effective methods … if you already have decided to use some of them. The rest of the civilized world are already considering you as torturers. In a perhaps strange way if your government had come out and said “**** yeah we are torturing these people” I would have respected them more (not much, but more nonetheless). At least then they would have been honest about it … instead of trying to re-label and justify a technique of torture that has been a favourite of bad-guys since the Spanish inquisition invented it half a millennia ago. The Spaniards called it toca, or tortura del agua. They were honest about it.
Originally posted by sgt203
His last big attack caused the deaths of over 3000 American Civilians, men, women and children. His networks world wide body count is much much higher than that. He and his followers have long ago removed themselves from the laws and acceptance of the civilized world. Yet we should provide them the protections of the civilized world once they are drawn back into it against their will???
Less than 3000 Americans were killed by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It should hardly be necessary to exaggerate that event.
A wise man once said “the fire you kindle for your enemy often burns you more than it burns him”. And it is very true. Being civilized is not measured by how you treat your friends, but how you treat your enemies. By not affording these people the protections of the civilized world, as you quite eloquently put it, you have made yourselves less civilized. If you do that then the terrorists have won … and they have, big time.
Originally posted by sgt203
These government agents job is to protect you, your family, our soldiers home and abroad, and every civilian of every country all over the world who may for whatever reason may be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Originally posted by sgt203
It is a personal matter to some mother, father, brother or sister out there who may be the next target.To say that is beside the point because it does not personally involve you, but then to say should it you would do whatever it takes to protect your family is slightly hypocritical. That is exactly what is being done here. They do not have to specifically protect your family but every family all over the world.
While protecting life is important there are far more important issues at stake here. Some things are worth dying for; two of them are freedom and justice. Despite a most impressive propaganda campaign by (among others) your government to make me believe otherwise, terrorism is a minute threat to me, my family, and everyone else in the western world. Compared to other hazards like traffic accidents and illnesses, terrorism is a negligible threat. I am far more likely to be killed by what I’m eating than by some religious zealot with a purpose. So please believe me when I say that I don’t want protection from terrorism. I’d rather live with the added risk of being blown up in a coffee shop than have the “protection” of a secret police and the knowledge that atrocious things are being done to people … in MY name.
So please for the sake of [insert favourite deity] … lose the Gestapo and their torture chambers … “simulated” or otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Viking
While protecting life is important there are far more important issues at stake here. Some things are worth dying for; two of them are freedom and justice.
FREEDOM!!!
(http://www.magicdragon.com/Wallace/melblue2.gif)
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
FREEDOM!!!
(http://www.magicdragon.com/Wallace/melblue2.gif)
He thought it was worth being tortured to death for. (Well, not Mel Gibson .... Billy Wallace.) Seems all that changes with time and geography are the perspectives of whoever needs a good excuse to do the wrong thing (versus the character to do the right thing). :cool:
-
Let's not forget Justice. She's the one on the right.
(http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/jay_and_silent_bob_strike_back/_group_photos/ali_larter4.jpg)
-
I'd prefer her to be piece.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Sorry. Not one example of waterboarding being required to avoid a situation like on the T.V. show "24" has ever been offered up by the administration to justify exceptions to the standards against torture the U.S. has supported since ... well ... pretty much the formation of the nation.
But if the rationalization makes you feel better, keep watching the show and using it to form your political opinions.
;) :aok
So if you didn't get the memo it didn't happen?
-
Originally posted by Slash27
So if you didn't get the memo it didn't happen?
Memo? A singular, TV-inspired example does not a policy make. That's not how a country exemplifies the civil rights it insists China (for example) adhere to.
Now if Keifer's forced to make a judgement call ..... guess it'll be up to him - when and if it happens. But we don't use "24" scripts to influence policies regarding torture scenario moral loopholes. Or, at least we didn't before the madness took hold.
Sayin'.
-
ok, wtf are you so assed up about anyway? seriously
-
Hmmmm .... wha? How'd your toes get down there? No ... seriously, bro. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Sorry. Not one example of waterboarding being required to avoid a situation like on the T.V. show "24" has ever been offered up by the administration to justify exceptions to the standards against torture the U.S. has supported since ... well ... pretty much the formation of the nation.
But if the rationalization makes you feel better, keep watching the show and using it to form your political opinions.
;) :aok
Well arlo I've never watched the show, not once, not even 5 minutes of it. So nice try no cigar.
Now please answer the question instead of tiptoing around it. Or are you so tied up in your perfect prissy world you are above answering such questions?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Well arlo I've never watched the show, not once, not even 5 minutes of it. So nice try no cigar.
Now please answer the question instead of tiptoing around it. Or are you so tied up in your perfect prissy world you are above answering such questions?
Coulda fooled me. It's pretty much dead on. Didja get it from a poli-blog? If so, they probably formulated it from a "24" inspiration. Speaking of which, why can't you get that that's why I don't take it as a serious question? No "tip-toeing" involved. I prefer to argue reality but if you're gonna go that route, I'm just gonna treat that accordingly. Not really an "Arlo problem." ;)
NEVER-THE-LESS ... there was an answer. I know you missed it, being all offended over not being taken as seriously as you believe you're supposed to be with this "What would you do if ...?" scenario.
Here it is. Pay attention now:
"Now if Keifer's (Keifer = agent on the scene of the precise scenario you imagine) forced to make a judgement call ..... guess it'll be up to him - when and if it happens. But we don't use "24" scripts to influence policies (that would be guidelines for every person in legal custody) regarding torture scenario moral loopholes. Or, at least we didn't before the madness took hold." - Arlo, CIA jet crashes with 4 tons of coke onboard thread, AHBB, 12-22-2007 8:50 p.m.
You're welcome. Show some gorram appreciation, for a change. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Coulda fooled me. It's pretty much dead on. Didja get it from a poli-blog? If so, they probably formulated it from a "24" inspiration. Speaking of which, why can't you get that that's why I don't take it as a serious question? No "tip-toeing" involved. I prefer to argue reality but if you're gonna go that route, I'm just gonna treat that accordingly. Not really an "Arlo problem." ;)
NEVER-THE-LESS ... there was an answer. I know you missed it, being all offended over not being taken as seriously as you believe you're supposed to be with this "What would you do if ...?" scenario.
I looked for a simple yes or no. And got neither, you avoided the question, which indicates me you don't have the spine to stand up for your principles when push comes to shove, the best you can do is accuse people of watching to much TV. FYI I typed in that original post, no looking at blogs, tv, scripts etc. Some of us can think without the need of such things, and some of us can say the world is a bad place and sometimes you have to do bad things to stop bad things happening to you.
I know your type Arlo, you're prepared to put morals above reality as long as it is at a distance from you.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I looked for a simple yes or no. And got neither, you avoided the question, which indicates me you don't have the spine to stand up for your principles when push comes to shove, the best you can do is accuse people of watching to much TV. FYI I typed in that original post, no looking at blogs, tv, scripts etc. Some of us can think without the need of such things, and some of us can say the world is a bad place and sometimes you have to do bad things to stop bad things happening to you.
I know your type Arlo, you're prepared to put morals above reality as long as it is at a distance from you.
Neh. You don't. And no, I didn't avoid the question. First off, I'm not obligated to give you a "simple yes or no." Think about it. You're trying to impress me with a "life isn't that simple" circumstance while demanding I accept your simple take on it. When push comes to shove you didn't get what you wanted. Am I supposed to be overly-sympathetic to your opinion because you can't accept anything else? You better learn to get over that because I'm not particularly impressed.
My morals are no different point-blank or long distance. Got a problem with it? Take it up with your inner child. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Neh. You don't. First off, I'm not obligated to give you a "simple yes or no." Think about it. You're trying to impress me with a "life isn't that simple" circumstance while demanding I accept your simple take on it. When push comes to shove you didn't get what you wanted. Am I supposed to be overly-sympathetic to your opinion because you can't accept anything else? You better learn to get over that because I'm not particularly impressed.
My morals are no different point-blank or long distance. Got a problem with it? Take it up with your inner child. :D
is that a yes or no?
-
Originally posted by john9001
is that a yes or no?
You'd be confused by either. And something more detailed would just make ya pee. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Neh. You don't. First off, I'm not obligated to give you a "simple yes or no."
Your avoidance of an answer gave me all I needed to know and reaffirmed my previous post, thankyou.
-
Whatever self-reaffirmation keeps you tickin'. ;)