Mastermind of 9/11 Attacks Designs a Secret Vacuum Cleaner

HonorPoncaCityDotCom writes "AP reports that while confined to the basement of a CIA secret prison in Romania about a decade ago, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, asked his jailers whether he could design a vacuum cleaner. After all KSM earned his bachelor's in mechanical engineering, the agency had no long-term plan for him, but might thought he might someday prove useful and might even stand trial one day and for that, he'd need to be sane. They were concerned that his long imprisonment might do so much psychological damage that he would no longer be useful as source for information. "We didn't want them to go nuts," said a former senior CIA official. So, using schematics from the Internet as his guide, Mohammed began re-engineering one of the most mundane of household appliances. It remains a mystery how far Mohammed got with his designs or whether the plans still exist and even Mohammed's military lawyer, Jason Wright, says he is prohibited from discussing his client's interest in vacuums. 'It sounds ridiculous, but answering this question, or confirming or denying the very existence of a vacuum cleaner design, a Swiffer design, or even a design for a better hand towel would apparently expose the U.S. government and its citizens to exceptionally grave danger,' says Wright. So now, says Doug Mataconis, if you happen to start seeing ads for the CIA's revolutionary new home cleaning device, you'll know where it came from." Sounds perfect for In-Q-Tel.

Comments

I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesman

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care how many marbles it can grab up from the floor

admitted?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was tortured in order to obtain the confession, I don't know what good it is.

Re:admitted?

[Zemran]

He was tortured to get a confession and when they read it, it was the plan for a vacuum cleaner...

Re:admitted?

[artor3]

He admitted to his role in 9/11 several months before being captured, in an interview with Al Jazeera.

That in no way excuses torture, nor does it mean he's guilty of the dozens of other crimes that they tortured him into confessing to, but he was responsible for 9/11.

Re:admitted?

[the_other_one]

I vaguley recall that this was the plot of an episode of Hogan's Heros.
The Norton project was not a bombsight.

Re:admitted?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you don't torture people who you think are criminals -- it does nothing but contribute doubt to your case. Society learned long ago that a torture-free imprisonment, followed by a fair and impartial trial, was the most effective way to ensure that an admission of guilt (or conviction) was credible and final.

Re:admitted?

[Raenex]

To play devil's advocate, if you're looking for information, torture with cross-checking will probably gain you some. It will cost you in other ways, though.

Re:admitted?

[Anonymous Coward]

He admitted to his role in 9/11 several months before being captured, in an interview with Al Jazeera.

9/11 and that interview were clearly an amazing publicity stunt to generate hype for his vacuum cleaner design. Slashvertisement was just the next step in his plan. Next week, he'll open up the kickstarter project and the money will start rolling in like an avalanche.

Call me pessimistic, but I expect delays in any delivery date he sets.

All in all, it seems like the ???????????? before PROFIT was "get waterboarded". Who knew?

captcha: gigawatt

Re:admitted?

[pwizard2]

This is why I wish at times it were possible to rewrite human nature--essentially strip out the greed, petty cruelty, and shortsighted stupidity and distribute the fix like a software patch. Society would work a lot better if we didn't have these flaws.

Re:admitted?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

nor does it mean he's guilty of the dozens of other crimes that they tortured him into confessing to

To the best of my knowledge he didn't give them jack shit despite being waterboarded around 180 times. For a while there was this pro-torture narrative going around that he "broke" after ~30 seconds of waterboarding when later it turned out that the real story was closer to the CIA gave up waterboarding him after ~30 days of doing it to him 5 times a day and getting nothing.

Re:admitted?

[jamstar7]

This is why I wish at times it were possible to rewrite human nature--essentially strip out the greed, petty cruelty, and shortsighted stupidity and distribute the fix like a software patch. Society would work a lot better if we didn't have these flaws.

That'll take some serious genetic engineering followed by some serious behavior modification therapy starting from birth. And keep in mind that some people will fight to the death to hold onto their greed, petty cruelty, and shortsighted stupidity, basically, anybody in power at the moment anywhere on the planet. The rest of us? We're trying to make a living, raise the kids to be somewhat sane in an insane world, and maybe find a few fleeting moments of happiness before the hammer falls.

Re:admitted?

[kthreadd]

Unless you torture the cross checker I guess.

Re:admitted?

[SuricouRaven]

Until some mutant is born losing the patch and, in a world completly unprepared to handle such a person, swiftly amasses a vast fortune by reinventing the 419 scam and a bit of old-fashioned burglery.

Re:admitted?

[erikkemperman]

Really? Care to give examples? Because I thought that torture will only get people to tell you what they think you want to hear. Truth doesn't figure into it.

Unless the aim of torture of one guy is actually to frighten and discourage a bunch of other guys not yet residing in your secret lair dungeons. Maybe that would work. But that would be, you know, terrorism.

Re:admitted?

[maxwell demon]

That reminds me of the scene in Demolition Man where the policemen desperately try to stop Simon Phoenix by just ordering him to stop ...

Re:admitted?

[mysidia]

followed by a fair and impartial trial, was the most effective way to ensure that an admission of guilt (or conviction) was credible and final.

And then they went and screwed it up, by letting interrogators lie -- imply that they had enough evidence to put 'em away for life, and coax the prisoner into confessing under a false pretense that they'll get off with less prison time, than they'd be certain to have if they insisted upon exercising their right to a trial.

Re:admitted?

[mysidia]

9/11 and that interview were clearly an amazing publicity stunt to generate hype for his vacuum cleaner design. Slashvertisement was just the next step in his plan.

Prisoners in general are held to be in the service to the government, while in prison --- so, as if they were an employee, the government gets the rights to their creation, invention, or business.

So if there was a publicity stunt involved, the guy should have designed it first.

Re:admitted?

[Omestes]

Yup, the sad fact is that torture actually works and it can save lives when executed properly.

I doubt the truthfulness of this statement, on the basis of numerous studies, history, and a basic understanding of human psychology. But even if it was true, it is irrelevant, since it switches the argument against torture into and ethical and humanitarian one, which is also pretty solid. There also is the matter of hypocracy, since we can never actually condemn torture (of the so-called "good-guys"), as long as we advocate it.

The fact that there is a debate about the merits of torture is absolutely astounding to to me. Astounding and abhorrent.

Re:admitted?

[icebike]

--->Society would work a lot better if we didn't have these flaws.---

There is nothing more dangerous than a man hell bent on redesigning society.

Re:admitted?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the reason you don't torture people is because it is wrong, and because it is prohibited by the document which outlines the terms under which the government maintains it's legitimacy.

How did we even get here to the point where we have discussions of the utility of our policy of torturing POWs-by-any-other-name? Torture has always been prohibited my entire life, and I was raised hearing stories about the example we set with out treatment of Japanese POWs during WWII.

Guantanamo Bay vaporizes any high-ground we had to be outraged when American POWs are mistreated.

Will leave everyone with one final thought:The NSA "Prism" fiasco just demonstrates how dangerous the concept of posse comitatus-style differentiation between treatment of citizens and non-citizens. If you do not provide non-citizens with the same protections you apply to your own citizens against un-just treatment by your government: all you are doing is allowing the build up of infrastructure for injustice. You are allowing your disregard for some group of undesirables to compromise your judgment. Ultimately, giving the government the rope to hang you with in the future simply by "miscategorizing" you with some "understandable clerical error" or worse: redefinition of the english language in a legal atrocity like the NDAA.

By the time the term "enemy combatant" has been thrown out by the supreme court as a linguistic fallacy, you'll have languished in a secret CIA prison for a decade. All because some mid-level government employee wanted you out of the picture in order to ensure that they didn't need to compete for the attention and heart of a woman such as Mercedès Iguanada.

Re:admitted?

[SuricouRaven]

Or just about any scene in The Invention of Lying.

Or a certain speech given in Team America :>

Re:admitted?

[DarkOx]

It also might not work at all. Take away greed and do you still have ambition to build? Our worst failings are also our greatest virtues, it's really a matter of situation and the wisdom to know which instincts to depend on when.

Re:admitted?

[liamevo]

Equating greed with ambition is a bit sad.

Re:admitted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, the sad fact is that torture actually works and it can save lives when executed properly.

That has never happened and never will.

The example that people bring up is "what if the is a bomb and you need to find it before it detonates."
What would happen in those cases is that the subject will tell you anything as long as it stops the torture. He will give you a false location that you need to verify, thereby stopping the torture temporarily. You could keep torturing him continuously until the bomb is found but that removes the connection between answering and removal of torture so that is also inefficient.
Torture never works in a time critical scenario because then the subject knows that he only has to stall for a fixed time.
For torture to even theoretically work you will need an unlimited time frame and ask about something that can be quickly verified. (Preferably within a 10 minute span or so. Without a strong connection between the correctness of the answer and the torture all answers will be lies.)
In those cases you can work just as well without the torture.

Re:admitted?

[Internetuser1248]

This is why I wish at times it were possible to rewrite human nature--essentially strip out the greed, petty cruelty, and shortsighted stupidity and distribute the fix like a software patch. Society would work a lot better if we didn't have these flaws.

The human mind is very malleable, it is in fact possible for each individual to modify his own nature to a significant degree. There are techniques to train you mind and modify your behaviour in pretty much any way you like. I have yet to find any reliable ways to change other people though.

Re:admitted?

[Fuzzums]

Saying you did it is something different than actually having done that something.
No matter how great it is to have a confession.

Re:admitted?

[Charliemopps]

You see, right there is your problem. You're arguing it wrong. Don't argue that it leads to better trials, better convictions, yada yada, then they can argue back against you about it. They can disagree. This isn't something that should be a debatable issue.

Argue: "Torture is evil. If we administer it, WE are evil people. It is all about hate, revenge and there is no excuse, no justification for it, ever. If a man were guarding the knowledge that would cure all mortal illness and the only way to get the cure from him were torture, it would STILL be wrong to commit it. We cannot give up our very souls for security because all we'll truely be secure in is our own shame."

Re:admitted?

[misexistentialist]

That assumes either simplistic questioning ("Admit you did it!") or that the questioning stops once the subject starts telling tales. But it's not easy to stick to lies even under normal interrogation. Of course the process isn't really suitable for court, since torturers' professional qualifications are sadly not recognized, and it would be rather strange for the defendant to hire his own expert to torture him, hoping for a less biased result.

Re: admitted?

[semilemon]

Sounds good in theory, but I'd be worried that we'd end up with The Observers from Fringe.

Re:admitted?

[dbIII]

No, it just gets you something else to use in a show trial once you've already decided the person is guilty. In the USSR they were well aware that torture was utterly useless as a means of gaining information when they did things like get someone to confess to blowing up more railway locomotives than existed in the USSR at the time. Torture is only good if you want to put on a show that makes it look like punishment is being carried out for crimes and catching the actual criminals instead of whoever is convenient is a lucky accident.
As for costing in other ways, guess who tried to kill off the President of France some years ago? It was a group of returned soldiers from Algeria that had tortured doctors, priests and plenty of others that they had seen as authority figures so they didn't see why they shouldn't kill off their President. This sort of stuff has a way of following people home, which may be when some torture was outsourced to Egypt and Syria (two we know about) as part of the "extraordinary rendition" that had large numbers of suspects being flown to places where US law does not apply with people that won't be setting foot in the USA committing the atrocities.
In my view it's another thing to add to the list, not just having atrocities committed but being cowardly weasels about it.

Re:admitted?

[drinkypoo]

US Soldiers are more likely to engage in spousal abuse, whether that's rape or pugilism. This distinction doesn't even involve combatants; there's enough brainwashing and rape to achieve this goal even for a non-com. I presume it's the same elsewhere. You teach people to solve problems with violence and that they are better than other people (as enlisted typically feel) and guess what happens?

Re:admitted?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Reference please. Sounds like more of your Islamicist apologist rubbish - hence, reputable reference please.

Torture doesn't work is an apologia for some religion? What a simplistic world you live in.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Laughed Off Waterboarding

Re:admitted?

[dbIII]

Oh, the all people of a certain faith should be put in concentration camps to "watch them" person has shown up again? Why not try googling it yourself before rolling out the apologist bit so early, since it's about the CIA lying and nothing about any faith, nationality or way of life one way or another.
The founders of Israel would be disgusted with you considering what they lived through.

Re:admitted?

[Anarchduke]

Now, now, it wasn't torture. It was just "enhanced interrogation." We would never countenance torture. Just like we would never support rape. Its just "enhanced kissing."

Re:admitted?

[Anarchduke]

Well, we in America have a real big belief in greed. That's the whole justification behind trickle-down economics and the Ayn Rand/Atlas Shrugged bullshit. You raise taxes on the rich so they can't keep what they've acquired, then they will suddenly not want to bother succeeding anymore.

Re:admitted?

[Anarchduke]

Torture seems to do a pretty good job of it. The change may not be want you want, but you will change them.

Re:admitted?

[Anarchduke]

We invaded Iraq because of Hussein's massive imaginary stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. And probably oil.

Re:admitted?

[Livius]

Unless the aim of torture of one guy is actually to frighten and discourage a bunch of other guys not yet residing in your secret lair dungeons.

The purpose of torture is to terrorize others. That's why torture is 'secret' (because it's illegal), but that 'secret' always seems to very widely known.

When a prisoner is tortured, a decision has already been made that it's not about criminal justice or reliable information.

Re:admitted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I thought that torture will only get people to tell you what they think you want to hear

Why? Why do you think that people will _ONLY_ lie? What makes you so sure? If someone had information to hide and were tortured, its certainly ONE OF THE POSSIBILITIES that they would reveal that information.

Truth doesn't figure into it.

So every single person who was tortured always lied in each and every instance? lol.. your brain seems particularly receptive to propaganda and seems to exhibit a tendency of non-critical thought. Ah... to think of the things I could sell you...

Re:admitted?

[0ld_d0g]

I doubt the truthfulness of this statement, on the basis of numerous studies, history, and a basic understanding of human psychology.

If I had information and if someone wanted to pull my fingernails or gouge my eyes, I think I would consider giving up that bit of information (discounting obvious external factors). Ofcource at the same time, I would be scared that my torturers would think I was lying and continue torturing me for information that I *DONT* have. Then ofcource as you say, people make up any kinds of shit to make it stop.

You can't make blanket statements like "it works" or "it never works", etc. Like everything else in the world, its a large grey area.

The fact that there is a debate about the merits of torture is absolutely astounding to to me. Astounding and abhorrent.

A debate does not necessarily validate any POV. In fact good debates can serve as a great arguments against certain points of view.

Re:admitted?

[Raenex]

No, it just gets you something else to use in a show trial once you've already decided the person is guilty.

You need actionable information or some way of verifying it. Example: Leon v. Wainwright:

"Leon [one of the kidnappers] and Frank Gachelin [a relative of the kidnapee] met in the shopping center parking lot at 2:00 a.m. During the confrontation Leon drew a gun on Frank. The police officers, who had accompanied Frank to the meeting, immediately arrested Leon and demanded that he tell them where he was holding Gachelin. When he refused to tell them the location, "he was set upon by several of the officers." Leon v. State, 410 So.2d 201, 202 (Fla.3d DCA 1982). "They threatened and physically abused him by twisting his arm behind his back and choking him until he revealed where Louis [Gachelin] was being held." Id. The officers went to the apartment, rescued Gachelin and arrested Armand [the second kidnapper]."

Sure, you can practice crude torture, get signed "confessions" and boatloads of real and made up information. But to say you can't get any information from torture is just trying to shortcut the argument.

Re:admitted?

[gl4ss]

Because I thought that torture will only get people to tell you what they think you want to hear

Why? Why do you think that people will _ONLY_ lie? What makes you so sure? If someone had information to hide and were tortured, its certainly ONE OF THE POSSIBILITIES that they would reveal that information.

Truth doesn't figure into it.

So every single person who was tortured always lied in each and every instance? lol.. your brain seems particularly receptive to propaganda and seems to exhibit a tendency of non-critical thought. Ah... to think of the things I could sell you...

well.. you can't know if it was a lie, a hopeful thought or something else. people might confirm your "suspicions", which might be a lie or might not - the guy telling you it might not know it though.

but more to the point.. why you don't torture people is simply because that it's evil, wrong and against the principles of western morality, idiot.
that's why it's illegal and against international laws. sure, you might save a life sometime - that's the risks you run by abiding to rule of law for which you're supposed to be fighting for, there's NO FUCKING WAY to execute torture "properly" except with consent for sexual satisfaction.

if you go the other way around then you could justify killing everyone in middle east because someone of them might sometime kill someone american. thus you would be "saving american lives" by killing everyone, going all judge death - preventing all kinds of crime with a simple "cure". now that sounds fucking stupid doesn't it? yeah, it's not so black and white but actually what's black and white very simply is that you don't torture people on purpose.

Re:admitted?

[dissy]

Ooo a pro torture animal exposes itself! Thank you for that

The only way to prove your case to us is by stating those claims under weeks of torture. As long as you are NOT in agony, nothing you say is true.

Re:admitted?

[master_kaos]

Um, ok so say you know a critical piece of information, you are refusing to give it up, they start torturing you, so you lie and tell them what they want to hear, they crosscheck it and realize you were lieing , not they torture you even worse. Maybe even threaten to kill your kids (say, 24 style), are you going to keep lieing? I know I would break really fast. Although I don't know what you would do in the position if you don't actually know something but they think you do.. that would suck

Re:admitted?

[gl4ss]

Reference please. Sounds like more of your Islamicist apologist rubbish - hence, reputable reference please.

if he broke in 30 secs.. why the fuck is the trial taking so fucking long to be finished with? I don't think anyone breaks from waterboarding in 30 secs though - and it's probably the sort of thing you would get used to, like severe spankings.

Re:admitted?

[Omestes]

I know I would break really fast.

I might, you might... but imagine it was something truly important, something you were willing to give your life for? There are plenty of stories of people withstanding torture. A lot of American POWs never gave in, because they believed in their cause, believed their cause was greater than them, or their families.

Love of God, or Country is a very powerful thing.

I know I would break really fast. Although I don't know what you would do in the position if you don't actually know something but they think you do.. that would suck

If we need to torture you, then we can't know what you know, so how do we ever verify that you don't know?

All this is fine and dandy, be we're still arguing about torture. I don't care if torture is 100% effective, I'd still oppose it. If torture would save my family, I'd still be against it. If torture saved us from 100 9/11s, I'd still oppose it.

Re:admitted?

[Omestes]

I didn't say it was 0% effective, it just isn't very effective, nor is it the most effective way of reliable obtaining information. There are far more effective ways of obtaining information from uncooperative enemies.

Re:admitted?

[sjames]

Given his admission, a trial should have been practically a gimme. So why didn't they just go ahead and try him?

Re:admitted?

[hedwards]

Not likely.

That's going to result in creating a patsy if they weren't already guilty. You'd be surprised how easy it is to get people to say what you want them to say when they're under duress. These kind of fishing expeditions almost always result in a confession, it's just that there's no way of knowing how much they knew and how much they picked up from the interrogator.

Re:admitted?

[Belial6]

No one is arguing the ethics of torture (well most of us are not.) The effectiveness is a completely different story though. Any claims that torture doesn't work are ridiculous. All of the people trying make their case on the ethics of the situation by claiming that it is ineffective are working against themselves. By making clear and obvious false statements, they lose their credibility.

Torture is a statistical investigation. How accurate your results are depend highly on the questions you ask and the number of samples you take.

Re:admitted?

[hedwards]

They could have gotten the same information using non-torture.

And what you're neglecting to factor in here is that the individual would have, in all likelihood, talked with less severe methods. Torture does not work on the people for whom there aren't other less extreme forms of interrogation. Somebody who isn't talking under any circumstance isn't going to talk even when tortured. What's more, when torturing for information, you have no way of knowing if it's true nor do you have any way of knowing if it's all of the relevant information.

In the case of those kidnappers, there could easily have been information that the kidnaper would kill the victim if they approached through a certain door, or would be killed if they didn't receive a call at a certain time.

So yes, this is no real information, it is the simplest type of information and not typically the sort of information that people are tortured to get.

Re:admitted?

[hedwards]

That's bullshit. Stress is known to cause memory loss, and when you're talking about torture, you're talking about an extreme level of stress.

What's more, people can be incredibly perceptive about things when sufficiently motivated. And the person doing the torture has to be extremely careful so as to not introduce contamination. Then again, you do have to stop torturing them when they talk, and that can be a pretty good hint to the person being tortured as to what to say, regardless of truth.

Re:admitted?

[hedwards]

The problem is that if you can't identify the truths and the lies in the confession then you're no better than you were before the interrogation. The point of interrogation is to get useful information that can be used. If the useful information is drowned in a sea of generally unreliable bullshit, then you haven't achieved anything at all.

Re:admitted?

[Belial6]

You started out great. You blew it with "It is all about hate, revenge". It clearly is not all about hate and revenge. Stick with "Torture is evil. If we administer it, WE are evil people."

Re:admitted?

[0ld_d0g]

I didn't say it was 0% effective, it just isn't very effective, nor is it the most effective way of reliable obtaining information.

There is no single method of obtaining reliable information. Different people crack under different kinds of interrogation techniques. That much is true.

In a civilized, humane world torture certainly should be avoided or at the very least be the *last thing* you use after exhausting other, much 'better' methods. However I doubt if such a perfect world can ever exist as long as we're dealing with humans produced by our current genetic makeup.

I didn't say it was 0% effective, it just isn't very effective

Um.. okay - if you say so.. :-S. In your original reply you said you doubted the truthfulness of the statement that 'torture works'.

Re:admitted?

[HiThere]

I believe the correct quote (translated) is: "Kill them all, God will know his own." Don't remember the origin, though.

Re:admitted?

[HiThere]

It doesn't even take much duress. Pointed questions and leading questions are often enough to insert false memories.

Re:admitted?

[Raenex]

They could have gotten the same information using non-torture.

They might have. It is unknown if they would have, or how long it would have taken, and if the person would have been moved or killed by the time they did.

Torture does not work on the people for whom there aren't other less extreme forms of interrogation.

We have a positive example in this case where it did work: After initial questioning the person refused to answer, he was tortured, and he gave up the info. We only have your assertion that he would have answered otherwise.

What's more, when torturing for information, you have no way of knowing if it's true nor do you have any way of knowing if it's all of the relevant information.

They checked the place and rescued the victim and arrested the other kidnapper.

In the case of those kidnappers, there could easily have been information that the kidnaper would kill the victim if they approached through a certain door, or would be killed if they didn't receive a call at a certain time.

Indeed, which could also be true for a non-torture method, so are you arguing for the torture method as the quick way to get actionable info?

So yes, this is no real information

Sounds like you are just in denial.

it is the simplest type of information and not typically the sort of information that people are tortured to get.

It's a positive example when it is claimed that torture doesn't work. I said it can work, but you need actionable info or the ability to cross-check it.

Re:admitted?

[cheesybagel]

Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. The PNAC supported two simultaneous wars before W was elected president. One in Iraq to control Middle Eastern oil production, another in North Korea in an attempt to gain more mindshare in that region and ensure Korea remained nuclear weapons free.

They just used the attacks as an excuse to be able to railroad the Iraqi invasion earlier. I am kind of surprised so many idiots just accepted their blatant lies at face value. I guess Goering was right after all. You just need to cook up some imaginary phantoms and denounce peaceniks as collaborating with the enemy and unpatriotic and you get your people behind a war of aggression regardless if you are in a democracy or not.

As for Afghanistan that was a legitimate response IMO since the Taliban basically trained the perpetrators and were covering for Bin Laden. While Bin Laden was not directly in charge of that particular operation he was the leader of the organization behind those attacks and many others.

Re:admitted?

[Omestes]

In a civilized, humane world torture certainly should be avoided or at the very least be the *last thing* you use after exhausting other, much 'better' methods. However I doubt if such a perfect world can ever exist as long as we're dealing with humans produced by our current genetic makeup.

Sadly this is true. I just always want to ask advocates of torture if its okay if the "enemy" tortures their kids, and how is that different than us torturing someone else's kids. This is utopian logic, though, since it requires us to see things universally, without prejudice or the ditching false idea that people across other imaginary lines are less human than us.

In your original reply you said you doubted the truthfulness of the statement that 'torture works'.

A bit of a misunderstanding, sorry. "Torture works" sounds like a blanket statement saying "torture always works", or is "the most efficient way of getting results", this might not have been intended, but it is how I read it. Perhaps wrongly.

I've known a couple of people who were gathering intelligence in the military, and generally their opinion was torture doesn't work, and when it does, there are better methods for getting better intel faster.

Re:admitted?

[bhiestand]

There are plenty of stories of people withstanding torture. A lot of American POWs never gave in, because they believed in their cause, believed their cause was greater than them, or their families...Love of God, or Country is a very powerful thing.

"A lot"? Hardly. Closer to a handful. Nearly everyone breaks eventually--those that don't are often just killed.

If torture would save my family, I'd still be against it.

Just as you can't say how you'd respond to torture, you really can't say that you'd be against torture to save your family unless you have been there.

I apologize for the Hollywood scenario, but imagine your spouse and children being held by some child porn ring, being raped regularly. The group doesn't want a ransom, but you've got your hands on one of the perps... he won't talk. You don't start slapping him around at all? I call bullshit.

I am not condoning or promoting torture. I don't want it to be legal. But I can damned well see situations where I would want to use it. And that's why we have laws.

Re:admitted?

[Omestes]

I apologize for the Hollywood scenario, but imagine your spouse and children being held by some child porn ring, being raped regularly. The group doesn't want a ransom, but you've got your hands on one of the perps... he won't talk. You don't start slapping him around at all? I call bullshit.

Easy... I'd call Liam Neeson.

Seriously, though, you are right, you never know. But I'd like to think of myself not, its part of my internal image. When it comes to our government torturing people things are a bit different, since there is a big enough space for us to keep a cool, rational mind.

Re:admitted?

[cavebison]

We cannot give up our very souls for security because all we'll truely be secure in is our own shame.

However the "soul" is a human invention, as is torture, so your point is moot. Oh wait, no, torture isn't actually a human invention; the disregard for suffering of other beings as a means to an end is one of the cornerstones of the natural world. From being slowly digested alive, or eaten from the inside by someone's parasitic young, to being used as a recreational plaything by a cat or a killer whale. It's all good for Mother Nature.

And you're complaining about us behaving like veritable saints; making someone suffer for an infinitesimal proportion of their life, in order to gain information that might save many other people from greater suffering? Mother Nature, if she were manifest as a human being, would be aghast at your attitude.

It's for the good of the species, after all.

Re:admitted?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Now we've dealt with the US torture of three men (where I agree with you is disgusting), can we get a comment from you about the *thousands* of people tortured by jihadis

They don't represent me. They are not my elected government. I didn't hire them and I have zero input into how they behave.

My country, right or wrong.
If right to be kept right.
If wrong to be set right.

Re:admitted?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Thanks for your reply. I see that you want to be principled and retain the moral high ground. Thus, you feel that you cannot condemn others aside from your own Government

Nope I don't. I just find you irritating. You've got a bug up your ass about something and you want to make this thread that has practically nothing to do with your bug into your ass. I don't feell like playing that game.

Okaaayyy

[deburg]

Now we know who sent the bomb

U.S. nuclear submarine fire linked to vacuum cleaner - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/06/us-usa-submarine-fire-cause-idUSBRE8551DT20120606

Wrong date

[ChrisMaple]

4/1

In the course of events -

[Anonymous Coward]

The CIA gave the design to the NSA - they would have got it anyway. The NSA realized what they had, how efficient a weapon it really was, and built it.
Now they are using it on everyone and everything.

Re:He Should Be Executed

[Grave]

How is he still alive?

Simple. We threw him in Gitmo instead of treating him like the a criminal, and trying him by jury. He'd already have been executed if we would've done that. But since due process was not afforded, we are now paying the bills for keeping him alive. Funny how that worked out for us..

Mk 1

[Coditor]

If the vacuum starts looking like a giant metal guy with a glowing center light maybe they should rethink this idea.

Re:He Should Be Executed

[interkin3tic]

Because he hasn't gone to trial yet. Presumably the powers that be figure that detaining someone forever without trial, but it's another thing to execute a person without trial. In terms of PR if not in terms of ethics.

I've heard...

[Guano_Jim]

...his design sucked.

Thank you! I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

Re:I've heard...

[Anonymous Coward]

The deserts menu is rather dry and crunchy ... would not recommend

Many terrorists are engineers

[ebno-10db]

It's interesting how many terrorists are trained as engineers.

Re:Many terrorists are engineers

[Anonymous Coward]

We ought to require rigorous background checks on all prospective engineering students. It is dangerous to give knowledge of engineering to those who may be terrorists.

Re:Many terrorists are engineers

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of engineers just have anger issues. Myself and some of my classmates/work friends included, but we've learned the joys of drinking. Islamic rules don't really allow for that if you follow them strictly, so you need other outlets :)

Re:Many terrorists are engineers

[rasmusbr]

It's interesting how many successful terrorists are trained as engineers.

Fixed that for you. It is interesting, but it is also unsurprising if you think about it.

Re:Many terrorists are engineers

[TeknoHog]

It's interesting, because while you obviously need good technical skills, you also need some level of blind obedience.

Now excuse me while I go and bash some followers of the cult of Vi with my Model M.

Re:Many terrorists are engineers

[pla]

It's interesting how many terrorists are trained as engineers.

I would call that more of a sampling bias.

You basically have one core prerequisite for driving someone to acts of terrorism - Extreme belief in a position that most others don't hold, about which you feel the "wrong" opinion will cause massive damage on a large, even global, scale.

You can then divide that into two groups - The wrong and the right. The former, for some reason, almost always seem to act based on belief in imaginary creatures - Tree spirits, Allah, Gaia, Jesus, unicorns, what-have-you. The latter tend to see things in an unusually unfiltered way, and realize that we as a species amount to little more than a harmful bacterial colony run amuk in the petri dish we call "Earth"

So, you have your prerequisites there. Now for the sample bias: Relidiots focus their intellectual efforts primarily in memorizing indoctrinating material and suppressing their logical abilities to allow them to survive the cognitive dissonance of uttering seven mutually inconsistent ideas before breakfast every morning. Engineers focus their intellectual efforts on understanding the basic principles by which our universe actually works, with a particularly perverse twist toward favoring the practical over the theoretical.

Which one can cause more destruction? Science works better than praying for a plague of locusts. Simple as that.

Re:Many terrorists are engineers

[PPH]

people that gets shit done

From Pakistan? Not a country known for its technical accomplishments. I'd say when you have an educated class within a hopelessly backward culture, you suppress their ability to accomplish goals. Which leads to frustration and a certain subset of that class lashing out destructively.

If Boeing can't get their act together with the 787, I fear the fury that will be unleashed in the Seattle area.

Re:Many terrorists are engineers

[gl4ss]

the same Pakistan that has a nuclear bombs and a missile to deliver them 2500 km?

Pakistani engineers are upper class if you consider the whole nation..

Re:Many terrorists are engineers

[Threni]

> the same Pakistan that has a nuclear bombs and a missile to deliver them 2500 km?

Yeah, they've got money. Other countries have bought them, or paid for foreign (typically Russian) engineers to build them for you.

Re:Many terrorists are engineers

[Hognoxious]

This is because poetry, no matter how bad, very rarely kills people.

ha!

[sgt scrub]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Making things that suck since 1987.

I'd buy one

[Tasha26]

I could do with a decent Vacuum cleaner. My old Henry is losing suction and I read horrible reviews about that new Dyson's cyclone blabla, it sucks everything but dust. So what's out there and doesn't suck?

Re:I'd buy one

[Anonymous Coward]

>So what's out there and doesn't suck?
Well.. there's your problem.. You've been asking the wrong question!

Re:I'd buy one

[jd2112]

I read horrible reviews about that new Dyson's cyclone blabla, it sucks everything but dust.

Apparently Microsoft secretly bought out Dyson.

Re:I'd buy one

[jamstar7]

I read horrible reviews about that new Dyson's cyclone blabla, it sucks everything but dust.

Apparently Microsoft secretly bought out Dyson.

Obviously, they hardcoded DRM into the vacuum cleaner's BIOS then, cause it's borderline useless as a vacuum cleaner. If it indeed did suck, it would be a good design.

Re:I'd buy one

[dbIII]

My old Henry is losing suction

That sounds like a line from the Goon Show.

Re:I'd buy one

[jd2112]

I read horrible reviews about that new Dyson's cyclone blabla, it sucks everything but dust.

Apparently Microsoft secretly bought out Dyson.

Obviously, they hardcoded DRM into the vacuum cleaner's BIOS then, cause it's borderline useless as a vacuum cleaner. If it indeed did suck, it would be a good design.

There is an old joke: The only way Microsoft could make a product that doesn't suck is if they made a vacuum cleaner.

Re:He Should Be Executed

[Blaskowicz]

You sound like he should be burned at the stake, even. Why not. But death penalty is useless, and insanely expensive in the US (which doesn't even prevent innocent niggers from being executed regularly)

I don't know why it still exists in a handful of first world countries. Just abolish it : if anything this tends to prevent backwards comment like yours that call to murder in a legal way.
I'd also rather have war criminals, dictators etc. not face execution when tried. E.g. the likes of Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, Richard Perle et al. should face trial by a international court and imprisonment in my book, but I don't want to kill them. ICC doesn't do it for instance. Killing prime ministers etc. is hairy, this can even give them an exit way like Goering who managed to commit suicide before getting executed.
Life imprisonment is a good enough sentence and even then the maximum sentence could be life imprisonment with no possibility to be freed before 30 years.

Slow news day I take it?

[Oyjord]

Surely there's something more worthy of our nerdly attention at the moment....

Wormold!!!!

[MarkvW]

Graham Greene LIVES!

YAY!!

And evil geniuses

[Okian Warrior]

Doctor Octopus
Doctor Doom
Doctor Evil
Doctor No
Doctor Horrible

It's interesting how many evil geniuses have an advanced degree.

Re:And evil geniuses

[Chris Mattern]

It's interesting how many evil geniuses have an advanced degree.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MorallyAmbiguousDoctorate

Re:And evil geniuses

[twosat]

... and Sherlock Holmes' arch-enemy is Moriarty - a Professor of Mathematics

Re:And evil geniuses

[RubberDogBone]

Doctor Hell
Doctor Shrinker
Doctor Computer

Apparently you have to go to school and study a lot to be a doctor, and then you find out that only medical doctors get to make patients wait an hour past their appointment time. So naturally, you turn to crime to inflict the same pain on people.

Re:Al-Roomba

[corychristison]

You know what a scumbag is, right? Its not just a derogatory term.

Life Imitates Art ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the Grahame Greene novel "Our Man in Havana"? The protagonist is a CIA agent who gets tired of his job trying to uncover missile silos and communist plots in Cuba and starts microfilming close-ups of vacuum cleaner schematics and sending those back to Washington.

So now we have a Guantanamo detainee drawing vacuum cleaner schematics? Which are no doubt being photographed and pored over by CIA agents for evidence of terrorist plots.....

Re:Life Imitates Art ?

[sourcerror]

I guess it helped that old Russian vacuum cleaners looked like a rocket.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4128/193134567.2/0_9d4ed_46b8054b_L.jpg

And here is a washing machine:
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4133/193134567.2/0_9d4d1_cf3056df_L.jpg

Re:Life Imitates Art ?

[dbIII]

Sounds like a Red Dwarf moment.

Kryten: "Whoever they are, they clearly have a technology far in advance of our own."
Lister: "So does the Albanian State Washing Machine Company!"

grave danger

[thereitis]

It sounds ridiculous, but answering this question, or confirming or denying the very existence of a vacuum cleaner design, a Swiffer design, or even a design for a better hand towel would apparently expose the U.S. government and its citizens to exceptionally grave danger

This kind of hyperbole is what makes people ignore warnings.

Vacuum man.

[Seiken]

I think that if you were to overlap all of the schematics, you would find that they are in fact for a mechanized suit designed to break out of jail and also prevent shrapnel from entering his heart, via a magnetic push.

Re:He Should Be Executed

[swiftdr]

But death penalty is useless, and insanely expensive in the US (which doesn't even prevent innocent niggers from being executed regularly

innocent niggers? really? was that necessary?

Re:This is what happens...

[khallow]

My brain swelled three sizes when I read that.

Obviously,

[Black Parrot]

his handlers never watched the first Iron Man movie.

Almost all comments so far have failed...

[Anonymous Coward]

"from the your-snide-response-must-include-the-word-sucks dept."

His contribution to society

[mendax]

Well, there are worse things he can do in his spare time (something he has a lot of in a prison cell) than design a vacuum cleaner. While the world does not need another terrorist since the so-called Third World and American fringe element nut jobs are very good at making those, the world can always use another good vacuum cleaner. My Dyson vacuum cleaner is good but I need one that is powered by a tame black hole for better sucking qualities. Also, with a tame black hole, I won't need to empty the dust container. Perhaps he can design one, even build it, make a mistake and suck himself out of existence!

KSM Terrorist Vacuum with a failsafe

[guitardood]

Here's a preview of the new vacuum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXOAc5yt218

Re:a vacuum?

[maliqua]

I grantee that you wont be allowed one of those in your carry on

Our man in havana

[goombah99]

Graham Greene rolls over in his grave.

Danger, my ass

[FuzzNugget]

Have any number of qualified and competent engineers (good ol' America-loving ones, of course) pick it apart and analyze it. Boom, problem solved.

There's no danger, it's a chickenshit excuse to avoid the negative PR of a "terrorist vacuum cleaner."

Re:Danger, my ass

[cellocgw]

Have any number of qualified and competent engineers (good ol' America-loving ones, of course) pick it apart and analyze it. Boom, problem solved.

Well, solved in a manner of speaking ~

Re:He Should Be Executed

[OakDragon]

This is friggin' hilarious. Racist, but against Dick Cheney and capital punishment, so Slashdot lets him off with a single -1 mod. :)

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[quenda]

How is this for impressive then:

Britain admits to using 'brutal' vacuum bomb against Taliban
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/britain-admits-using-vacuum-bomb/story-e6frg6to-1111116704067

Is this where KSM got the idea?

Re:He Should Be Executed

[Blaskowicz]

I fucked up I guess.

Re:He Should Be Executed

[SuricouRaven]

The term may usually be considered racist, but his use of it was sarcastic: He was refering to the well-known but somewhat embarassing fact that minorities conficted of crimes in the US tend to recieve much harsher sentences than would a white person convicted of the same crime under the same circumstances.

The country still hasn't entirely gotten over the old racist ways. They are much diminished now, but not eliminated.

In other news...

[Fuzzy Viking]

CIA is launching the new GuantanaMoBrands Home Appliances

Re:In other news...

[mysidia]

CIA is launching the new GuantanaMoBrands Home Appliances

Well... the prisoners might as well be doing something useful, for all the money being spent to house them. Spending all 8 am to 6pm every day working at a Vacuum cleaner factory in GuantanaMo sounds great to me.

Why should these prisoners get to play all day, when the rest of the population has to work?

Re:In other news...

[Anarchduke]

I know. I've heard they get to spend all day in a water park ... or something like that.

Why waste that time...

[Martin Spamer]

Just mark it classified and file it.

Re:He Should Be Executed

[Anonymous Coward]

"but it's another thing to execute a person without trial."

Osama was executed without trial.

I watched Zero Dark Thirty last night and it made me so sick.

Why America did you act like fucking children?

The state is supposed to be better than that. The state is supposed to represent what's best about a society. If the best that America has to offer is the endorsement of sneaking into a sovereign nation and murdering a bunch of people in the night, then I'll say it again, FUCK YOU AMERICA.

I do not, for the life of me, understand why, if they knew where OBL was, they couldn't invoke regular measures and have the police go to the house and arrest him. He could then be charged and extradited to the US. He could be represented in court. And then once the due process is followed, he could be executed (as per the laws of your own land) or jailed for life (as per the preferred punishment in the rest of the civilised world).

The US does not represent freedom in any form. My advice (FWIW) is to get your shit together and start respecting human rights again!

You don't really want a black hole

[Moraelin]

Actually, you probably don't want an appliance powered by a black hole, because those convert matter into energy via Hawking radiation and the energy output actually ramps UP as the size decreases. A very small black hole, say, 1 kg in weight (a little over 2 pounds) would convert itself into energy in about 84 attoseconds and release the same energy as a 21 megaton nuke or so.

You'd need a pretty big one for it to be stable, and I doubt you really want a vacuum cleaner weighing as much as the Everest :p

On the other hand, if we ever tame one, it would make an awesome source of energy for something that needs a lot more energy. Such as a continent. Or a warp-capable ship. Hmm, the Romulans were up to something.

Of course, it would still be a Tamagochi that blows up with the fury of a supernova if you forget to "feed" it, but, hey, it's all good as long as we call it a warp core breach. Right?

Hmm, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned Romulan singularity warp cores though... I hear the Tal'Shiar are nastier than the NSA and CIA put together ;)

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[Anonymous Coward]

10 years in prison without due process.
Tortured.

Nice democracy you have there.

Looking on the positive side...

[shikaisi]

... he's got a really nice clean cell now.

Romania?

[countach]

The CIA has secret prisons in Romania??? WTF?

Re:Romania?

[Livius]

Please tell me that's sarcastic mock surprise.

Re:Romania?

[bussdriver]

To an authoritarian, everything looks like Marxism. I bet you don't even really know anything about Marxism!

You probably hate democracy but love the brand "Democracy" not even grasping just how socialist democracies are. Probably you have a similar misunderstanding of the rule of law. Authoritarians seem to have troubles with these...

Civilized law abiding societies DO NOT JAIL EVIL PEOPLE. That is far more like a theocracy... Civil societies jail criminals who are unfit to be let lose in society. This guy isn't even convicted so he isn't a criminal yet, and as far as the information he gave under extreme torture (extreme by any sane measure) that can't be trusted. His treatment is so illegal that not only should all the people involved be in jail, he should be allowed to go free as punishment to the government. If they can jail people they flagrantly disregard the rule of law on (not to mention morality... or religious beliefs...) then what is to stop them from continuing to trample on people's rights?? (you have noticed the government has been moving in this direction ever since...right?)

War crimes and human rights crimes NEED to have repercussions; it is MOST important for the winners, not just the side that loses that the law be followed equally (FYI equality is a necessary part of justice.)

It also presumes omniescence.

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, how do you know there IS a bomb? If you are already certain enough to torture someone who could be innocent, you must have enough information to find out without torture.

We, as the viewer of 24 hours know that there's a bomb. We saw it being planted. We know that the story is going to be one where there is a bomb.

In Real Life (tm), we don't know that unless we were there like the cameraman was for 24 hours.

No mastermind

[Livius]

He didn't come up with the idea, he just watched what Israel and the US were doing on a daily basis. Even the suicide element had already been tried.

Re:The US is one of the few civilized countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Human life's worth is absolute, it has no modifiers nor quantifiers. The idea that the life of an "innocent" is somehow worth more or less is absurd.

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[Redmancometh]

The last 2 presidents have been a cancer on our nation. Reagen and Clinton weren't perfect, but they were a damn site better.

Re:This is what happens...

[Jeremy Erwin]

Chimping normally refers to the ritual of reviewing a newly taken photo on a camera's LCD.

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[slashmydots]

I wouldn't count on an article that claims "The cloud of burning aluminium powder means victims often die from asphyxiation before the pressure shreds their organs." to be terribly accurate. Considering the blast wave is about 2 seconds later and humans can hold their breath for at least 30 seconds, that's absurd.
Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that thermobaric weapons don't produce a vacuum wave. Internal organs are pounded by a high air pressure shockwave which is literally the exact opposite. Other than that, it's spot on. Great reporting.

Not the same

[dbIII]

Sorry, but that is not something that is referred to as torture. When you find out what we are writing about here you will be truly sickened and will get a glimpse of how evil people can be.

Re:Not the same

[timeOday]

Do you really want to rest the entire argument against torture on some absolute assertion, such as it "never" works? Absolute claims are extrmely susceptible to being overturned. Even in the hypothetical situation that it has never worked before, but happens to in some unusual case next week, would that justify it in the future? I think not.

Re:Not the same

[dbIII]

Alternatively there are very many instances where it has been shown to be untrustworthy, such as the many ones in the USSR, so hoping for rare "stopped clock is correct twice a day" situations is foolish even in places and times where morality has not been an issue. Even the most bloodthirsty secret police did not trust information gained solely from torture, it's a tool of terror or to provide the numbers to show that the number of confessions match the number of crimes.
You could use the same stupid argument you've provided for psychic object reading or convincing girls that they won't get pregnant if you have sex standing up. Sure, it may "work" next week but that's just a coincidence.
If that seems a bit harsh child then remember that you are trying to justify torture with coincidence and you've got a bit to learn about reality, practicality and morality before you grow up. If you are grown up I pity you and those around you.

Re:Not the same

[Belial6]

So, your definition of torture is when inflicting physical pain does not get you accurate information? If so, what is the word you use when you talk about someone inflicting pain until they get accurate information?

Re:Not the same

[Raenex]

Sorry, but that is not something that is referred to as torture. When you find out what we are writing about here you will be truly sickened and will get a glimpse of how evil people can be.

I'm truly sickened that you think it isn't torture. It certainly is under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: "[..] any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him [..]"

If you want to claim having your arm twisted behind your back or being choked doesn't cause severe pain or suffering, you're a liar. Yes, there are even worse forms of torture, but that's the problem the Bush administration got into after 9/11 by trying to say that their torture wasn't torture, but "enhanced interrogation".

In your effort to not admit it can work, you have become evil yourself.

Re:Not the same

[dbIII]

Amnesty International and others had web sites that will explain it to you.
This "your definition" bullshit is a barrier to communication for the sake of intellectual masterbation - don't be a wanker with lubricated weasel definitions of words or you just come off as some sort of clueless high school debate club child instead of somebody worth listening to.

Re:Not the same

[dbIII]

Nice straw man you are setting on fire there to try to avoid looking in the mirror. I suggest trying to think for yourself instead of falling for "might makes right" propaganda.

Re:Not the same

[Raenex]

Nice straw man you are setting on fire there to try to avoid looking in the mirror.

Nice inappropriate use of the straw man logical fallacy. I directly quoted you as saying, "not something that is referred to as torture", and directly responded to that, with a citation as well, and correctly linked your line of reasoning with the exact same reasoning that Bush's administration took after 9/11. If the shoe fits, wear it.

I suggest trying to think for yourself instead of falling for "might makes right" propaganda.

Non sequitur. I honestly have no idea where this came from or what you are talking about. I suggest not posting when drunk.

Re:Not the same

[dbIII]

correctly linked your line of reasoning with the exact same reasoning that Bush's administration took after 9/11

That was not "reasoning" but a thin veneer on "because Cheney paid for us to come up with a quasi-legal sounding excuse".

It's a bit depressing to read American children posting about how useful torture is. I wonder what sort of society we will be living in when they get old enough to be in positions of authority?

Re:Not the same

[Raenex]

That was not "reasoning" but a thin veneer on "because Cheney paid for us to come up with a quasi-legal sounding excuse".

Which makes it all the more hypocritical for you to adopt the same standards and try to redefine torture as not torture.

It's a bit depressing to read American children

Ad hominem.

posting about how useful torture is.

If you want to have a real argument about torture, then have a real argument. Don't try to shortcut it by stating you can't get useful information out of it, and then try to redefine torture when it is explicitly shown to have happened and been useful.

I never advocated torture, and never condoned it. I explicitly stated I was playing devil's advocate, since the groupthink position doesn't want to admit that torture could possibly work. And unlike you, I didn't try to redefine torture to not include torture as a matter of convenience. The horrible person is you.

Re:Not the same

[dbIII]

NO - it means I prefer the dictionary definition to what you are blabbering on about you sick little puppy.

Re:Not the same

[Raenex]

Please, then, provide me with the dictionary definition that supports your position, that choking somebody and twisting their arm behind their back to get information isn't torture. I already quoted the UN convention.

You won't, because you're full of shit and a hypocrite.

Re:Not the same

[dbIII]

I explicitly stated I was playing devil's advocate

Nice try to weasel out of it "I'm not saying ..." style.
Also how can I be a hypocrite when all we've been doing here is pointing out flaws in your position?

Re:Not the same

[Raenex]

Nice try to weasel out of it "I'm not saying ..." style.

No, what I said I believe, and stand by: that you can get useful information out of torture. That's not saying the same thing that you should torture, or that torture always works or even mostly works.

Also how can I be a hypocrite when all we've been doing here is pointing out flaws in your position?

The hypocrisy is that you tried to paint me as pro-torture, when it is in fact you you who adopted the same position as the Bush administration after 9/11, that "enhanced interrogation" wasn't torture.

And I was right. You didn't provide the dictionary definition, despite claiming that's what you were going by. You're full of shit and a hypocrite, and have dug yourself a hole you can't get out of.

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[slashmydots]

The US legal system is a fucking joke. Some hot shot lawyer would try some bullshit tactics to get him off and then be a famous, high paid defense attorney for the rest of his life. It's basically American Idol for lawyers when high profile cases come up. Everyone everywhere knows he did it so skip the stupid trial.
Oh and in case you didn't notice, HE'S NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN! You think the constitution applies to everyone worldwide? Go ask everyone worldwide what they think of us passing laws that pertain to them even though they don't live here.

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The US is not a democrapcy. It's a Republic!

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[sixsixtysix]

A constitutional republic is a type of democratic government.
A direct democracy is not the only democracy.
When the average person says 'democracy', they are merely referring to the fact that the citizens vote to elect their leaders.
Now quit being a douche, pack up your semantics, and kindly fuck off.

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[sjames]

Actually, they do create a vacuum when the fuel is consumed. However, the victims definitely die of having their lungs ruptured rather than simple asphyxiation.

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[sjames]

The Constitution applies to the government wherever it may act. That is frequently ignored but is nevertheless true. So long as the U.S. controls Gitmo, the Constitution certainly applies.

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[Teancum]

I was shocked to read the CIA operates a prison in Romania.

They just took over the prison being operated formerly by the USSR. Sounds about right with the current government.

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[Teancum]

This is being a troll. If you put Reagan into this position as being somebody who screwed up the country, you likely need to mention every President since Calvin Coolidge as having messed up the country so completely that it could even be said that the American Republic as it formerly existed is dead.

Of course you likely think Coolidge as a screw up too, but at least he paid down the national debt (not just reduced deficits) and cut 2/3rds of the federal government at the time into unemployment lines.... not that it made too many people unemployed by doing that. Even the War and Navy departments were quite small and only a fraction of the government even in proportion to what they are today.

Empty threats like sending people into labor camps and sterilizing people shows that you are also singularly incapable of becoming President, as you won't even understand the oath of office that you would be taking. Then again, I don't think any of those last dozen Presidents have kept their oaths either.

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[HiThere]

It is *nominally* a republic with a constitution. The actuality is somewhat different.

Terrorism Sucks

[Tablizer]

Terrorism Sucks

Re:He Should Be Executed

[Sardaukar86]

I fucked up I guess.

If only because sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality.

I thought your post was clearly tolerant rather than racist; the fact that you weren't screamed at by hordes of ACs suggests others understood too. That 'n' word sure does have the ability to cause plenty of uneasiness though..

Re:He Should Be Executed

[interkin3tic]

"but it's another thing to execute a person without trial."

Osama was executed without trial.

What's your point? That we did it once so we should have no problem doing it again under different circumstances?

The US does not represent freedom in any form.

That's quite the hyperbole. Osama bin laden wasn't promised any freedom by the US: he wasn't a citizen. And anyway, there's quite a bit of room between "killing someone who admitted to attacking you" and "no freedom whatsoever.

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[doccus]

Even POW's have rights..Now via the Geneva accord, but even before then... Only coiuntries to ignore such conventions entirely and without conscience have been North Korea, Japan, Germany, and now the US..

CiA Project Dream Confession uses Psychic Driving.

[ChiefHuntingBear]

It is the official position of the united states government that Khalid Sheik Mohammed masterminded nine-one-one in 1996, which is a year after I was briefed about the CiA's plans for that day by its' de facto director Dr. John Chadwick Rockwell, who was trying to recruit me from the Defense Intelligence Agency, and I reported about Project Flat Horizon, Project Commander And Chief and Project Sand Blast to hundreds of news organizations around the world, including in video recorded interviews with ABC, FOX, and CBS. This is in part why I'm being subjected to a Trial By Ordeal.

Stopped clock again

[dbIII]

And I'll draw attention again to the long established view in the USSR where they did such a thing a lot that such information could not be trusted. You can't tell if it's the time of day when the stopped clock just happens to be correct unless you get information from somewhere else. Thus pointless. File it with psychic detectives and magic rocks on the end of a bit of string.

You didn't provide the dictionary definition

Of course I didn't because those that defined it are far better suited than either of us. I'm not going to make up my own definition just because you are, I'm going to use the established one from experts instead of delving into irrelevant relativism shit.

when it is in fact you you who adopted the same position

So at one point you are saying I did define it and at another that I did? Make up your mind instead of arguing with yourself. I'll make it simple - I leave the definition to such people as Amnesty International and earlier US governments instead of weasels like Dick Chaney who decided to take the twisted line you appear to be pushing and then pretending that I agree with. Suggesting that I should have my own private definition of something is ridiculous bullshit and a barrier to communication - so piss off and read the fucking dictionary.

Re:Stopped clock again

[Raenex]

And I'll draw attention again to the long established view in the USSR where they did such a thing a lot that such information could not be trusted.

Repeating yourself isn't going to win the argument. I provided a positive example where it worked, and my position all along is you need some way to verify the info you get.

Of course I didn't because those that defined it are far better suited than either of us. I'm not going to make up my own definition just because you are, I'm going to use the established one from experts instead of delving into irrelevant relativism shit.

I mean quote the dictionary definition you are using. You have to be some kind of idiot to think I meant for you to make up your own "dictionary" definition. And I'm the one that managed to quote from the UN convention against torture, unlike the relativistic bullshit that you adopted because it fit your argument, even though it aligns with "enhanced interrogation" bullshit from the Bush administration.

But since you seem to inept to quote from a dictionary, I'll do it for you:

torture: "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion."

Now explain how twisting somebody's arm behind their back or choking them to gain information doesn't apply.

So at one point you are saying I did define it and at another that I did?

No, you idiot. I said you adopted the same position, not that you provided a dictionary definition. The two are not the same.

I leave the definition to such people as Amnesty International and earlier US governments instead of weasels like Dick Chaney who decided to take the twisted line you appear to be pushing and then pretending that I agree with.

*snort* So you think Amnesty International would disagree that twisting somebody's arm behind their back and choking them to gain information isn't torture? This was the whole point of "enhanced interrogation". They didn't rip people's fingernails off or put them on the rack, but they did waterboard, rough people up, and other stress forms like making them stand or deriving sleep.

And earlier US governments signed the UN convention against torture, which I already provided the definition for, and it clearly covers things like twisting arms behind people's backs and choking.

Go look it up

[dbIII]

There's no argument to "win" - you are just baring an amazing amount of baggage to somebody who has written little more than something along the lines of "you are wrong - go look it up".

Re:Go look it up

[Raenex]

You're just trying to handwave your way through the argument. Not only did I earlier quote the UN convention on torture, in my last post I quoted the dictionary as well. Clearly you have stopped reading and even attempting to address any arguments.

No response to what Amnesty International would think about twisting somebody's arm behind their back and choking them to gain information. They would call it torture, and you know it.

No response to the similarities between the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation" methods and your loose definition of torture, in particular with regards to the UN convention against torture, which I quoted, and previous administrations had signed, per your "leave the definition to such people as Amnesty International and earlier US governments".

You talk about "weasels like Dick Chaney who decided to take the twisted line you appear to be pushing", when in fact is is you who is trying to say when the cops twisted somebody's arm behind their back and choked them to get information, it wasn't torture.

What is your defense? You have none. The dictionary doesn't support you, the UN convention against torture doesn't support you, and there's no way in hell Amnesty International would support your position. You dug yourself a hole that you cannot get out of.

Re:Go look it up

[dbIII]

There is no argument. I'm simply chastising a bloodthirsty immature fool that has been brainwashed by thinking "24" is real or something.

Re:Go look it up

[Raenex]

You're right, there isn't an argument, since you provide no arguments, just bluster. But the record stands, you explicitly said that when cops twisted a suspects arm behind his back and choked him, that it wasn't torture. This is the same position that the Bush administration took with "enhanced interrogation".

You then appealed to an imaginary dictionary you couldn't quote from, never responded to the quoted UN convention against torture definition that I provided (a treaty signed by the US and almost all countries), never responded to the actual dictionary definition I provided, and ludicrously appealed to Amnesty International, as if they would agree that twisting arms behind backs and choking is not torture.

Pathetic.

Re:Go look it up

[dbIII]

I don't need to - all I have to do is tell you to look it up and ignore your lies and personal attacks. Are you normally like this or are you playing some sort of game here?

Re:Go look it up

[dbIII]

when cops twisted a suspects arm behind his back and choked him

Your reference to that is what is called trivilising an issue, like Cheney talking about how sometimes he stood up all day when news came out about prisoners being kept in stress positions.

Re:Go look it up

[Raenex]

I don't need to - all I have to do is tell you to look it up and ignore your lies and personal attacks.

You've been making the personal attacks of late without any arguments, while I've looked stuff up and quoted them here (unlike you).

Did I lie about you stating that twisting somebody's arm behind their back and choking them to get information is not torture?

Did I lie when I quoted the UN convention against torture?

Did I lie when I quoted from a dictionary?

What lie did I state? You can't name it, just like you couldn't quote from a dictionary because you probably never consulted it in the first place and it doesn't support your position.

Are you normally like this or are you playing some sort of game here?

I return the question to you. Bluster, obfuscation, and poor reading comprehension don't make for an argument.

Re:Go look it up

[Raenex]

[when cops twisted a suspects arm behind his back and choked him] Your reference to that is what is called trivilising an issue, like Cheney talking about how sometimes he stood up all day when news came out about prisoners being kept in stress positions.

Keep on digging that hole. You think it is "trivial" to twist somebody's arm behind their back and to choke them to gain information, and doesn't rise to the level of torture, but stress positions are.

You also have your story about Cheney wrong (surprise). The comment about standing up all day was from Rumsfeld, and it was handwritten on an approval memo: "However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

Re:Go look it up

[dbIII]

Does it matter which of those losers the anecdote about trivilising an issue is about - and yes - twisting an arm is trivial compared with the plentiful horror stories about torture. Please stop parading your character flaws in front of me and find something more useful and less gruesome to do.

Re:Go look it up

[Raenex]

Does it matter which of those losers the anecdote about trivilising an issue is about - and yes - twisting an arm is trivial compared with the plentiful horror stories about torture.

It's just a pattern of carelessness on your part, but the details also matter. Why does being forced to stand for 4 hours, and Rumsfeld says he does 8-10, constitute trivializing torture? Or did your biased and failed memory just insert Rumsfeld's reply to an unnamed act of torture that went beyond standing?

What's apparent is that the loser trivializing the issue of torture is you. By saying "twisting an arm is trivial compared with the plentiful horror stories about torture", you are taking the same stand of the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation" position. Yes, there is a wide spectrum of torture, but we don't excuse the stuff at the lower end because there is so much worse.

Please stop parading your character flaws in front of me and find something more useful and less gruesome to do.

You're the one who has exposed his character flaws for all to see, by trying to trivialize twisting of limbs and choking to gain information as not torture, by ludicrously claiming Amnesty International, of all groups, would not define such as torture, by ignoring the dictionary definition you claimed to be using, and by ignoring the UN convention against torture.

Re:Go look it up

[dbIII]

Still here torture advocate boy? Why?

Re:Go look it up

[Raenex]

Still no arguments to make? Why respond?

Re:Go look it up

[dbIII]

You are the one that for some reason is trying to convince a complete stranger that torture is useful. Why?

Re:Go look it up

[Raenex]

Because I believe in honest debate. You are the one who thinks twisting of limbs and choking is not torture, despite being in line with the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation", which you clearly despise. Why?

Why make feeble attempts to back up your torture-isn't-torture position with imaginary dictionary definitions and ludicrous claims that Amnesty International would not define such as torture? Why ignore and be in contradiction with the near-universal international convention against torture?

All this because you couldn't admit you were wrong.

Re:Go look it up

[dbIII]

I'm not wrong I'm just leaving it to the experts of which neither of us are. And if you think "honest debate" involves insults, trivialising a very serious issue and lying about what the other person has written it appears that your love of torture is not your only major character flaw.

Re:Go look it up

[Raenex]

I'm not wrong I'm just leaving it to the experts of which neither of us are.

You're a liar. First, you took the position that twisting arms behind backs and choking to gain information is not torture all on your own. When I actually provide quoted references from the "experts" that contradict your disdainful position, you have no reply and instead resort to insults or other bluster. Anything to avoid addressing the references.

And if you think "honest debate" involves insults

If the shoe fits, wear it. If you take a position that torture isn't torture, I'll call you a hypocrite and evil. You haven't been shy with insults. In fact, that's your fallback position when you run out of arguments.

trivialising a very serious issue

That's what you did by saying twisting people's arm behind their back and choking them to gain information is not torture.

lying about what the other person has written

Again you have repeated the charge of lying, but when I asked you last time to name when I lied, you had no response. I say again, what lie? Quote please. You can't, which makes you the liar.

your love of torture is not your only major character flaw

Funny, you accuse me of lying about what you have written and then immediately lie about my stance. When did I ever express a "love of torture"? Quote please. You can't, which makes you a liar.

In contrast, you have excused torturous behavior as not being torture, despite all the quoted references which directly contradict your position.

Re:Go look it up

[dbIII]

Your misrepresentation of my words is a very obvious lie as you well know. I really do not understand why you are pretending to be stupid along with everything else.

Re:Go look it up

[Raenex]

I gave you a simple and fair challenge: quote my lie. As I predicted, you couldn't, because you are a liar.

Re:Go look it up

[dbIII]

Reading comprehension failure as well? Let's try shorter words. When turn man into straw man is lie.
There is no audience by now and we both know you are a liar, along with the many other facets that disgust me more than would be polite to write here. Give it up.

Re:Go look it up

[Raenex]

Yup, when pressed, you again failed to quote me. You can't, because I didn't lie, and you are a pathetic liar yourself.

Re:Go look it up

[dbIII]

Are you just doing this for my entertainment or are you really that stupid?

Re:Go look it up

[Raenex]

I return the question to you, and ask again for you to quote my lie. That means copy and paste my words verbatim from when I lied. Apparently you are too stupid or are ethically challenged to do so.

Re:I wont pretend to be impressed for this salesma

[ender89]

I really don't get how a bomb can be inhumane. Is there a humane way to bomb someone? does it count as humane if it just drops a building on top of them? I suppose the most inhumane thing I could think of is something that only kills intended victims days, months and years later, after the conflict has been long over. asphyxiation would be roughly equivalent to bleeding out or something.

So you want me to read your poison again?

[dbIII]

You misrepresented my words - thus a lie. Read the comments above and you will find several examples as you most certainly are away so please stop playing such a stupid and childish game of merely wasting my time reading over your disgusting rants of which I haven't had the stomach to do more than skim.
In all this very long thread I have had nothing to prove anyway since you are putting forward a ridiculous, amoral and gruesome position that torture is a beneficial thing. It's up to the person that puts an unlikely position to justify it, and not to try to trick other people into making up private definitions of words and other schoolyard tricks.

Re:So you want me to read your poison again?

[Raenex]

Yup, what I thought. You repeat the pattern of never substantiating your claims, because you can't, because facts don't match your lies and imaginary worldview.

Re:So you want me to read your poison again?

[dbIII]

So says the boy advocating torture. You don't seem to have worked out that you need some fucking good reasons to commit such acts of evil so your parents have failed.

Re:So you want me to read your poison again?

[Raenex]

More lies that have already been addressed. I said torture can work, not that it should be done.

Who's the evil one here? It was you who took the position that twisting arms behind backs and choking to get information is not torture, aligning yourself with the "enhanced interrogation" position of the Bush administration post 9/11.

Who has failed to respond to actual dictionary definitions and quotes from the UN convention against torture? Who has ludicrously claimed that Amnesty International would not define such as torture?

You.

Who has lied repeatedly with no response when called out on it? Who has levied charges of lying, but refuses to quote the actual lie?

You.

Who was either so stupid or attempting to obfuscate that when asked for a dictionary definition, claims they don't want to make up their own instead of just providing the dictionary definition?

You.

Who is so stupid or trying to obfuscate that when asked to "quote my lie", comes back with his own generality instead quoting my "lie"?

You.

You're a piece of shit, and I'm tired of talking to you.

Re:So you want me to read your poison again?

[dbIII]

How this then - with your example where you attempted to trivialise the issue did the Judge rule that the police used torture or is it your own private bullshit definition like Rumsfled's trivialisation?