The guy who captured Sadam

[Panopticon]

You know what "targeted renditions" means, don't you? It means torture.

Sorry Gutie, but a targeted rendition does not mean torture. Without personal knowledge of military operations and intelligence gathering, your association of the two is understandable but incorrect.

Long before the term 'rendition' came into vogue, we military folks performed "targeted renditions". In basic terms, it is the covert, safe capture of an enemy operative or sympathizer to gain intelligence while causing anxiety among the captive's comrades. We were taught that torture does not work, don't use it. That was 40 years ago and it is still the doctrine taught by the U.S. military. Any soldier that violates that doctrine harms all of us and does not deserve to wear the uniform.

Just wanted to elucidate the term, as used by the Army.

[swampy]

Panoptition... I admire your desire to educate the unwashed around here, but if it doesn't fit their agenda expect personal attacks. They don't want anyone upsetting their apple cart.

[Gutenberg]

If only the morons in the White House and Pentagon hadn't turned the term into a euphemism for "torture." You did introduce a bit of doubt there though. I think that reporters would have used the clearer term "capture" for a general audience.

[Mac1337]

deckeda wrote:
I heard the liberals were also namby-pambys. Light in the loafers. Twinkle toes. Twinkle Bell. Prefer to "sadamize" each other.

Nothing wrong with any of the above but there is an element of truth in every stereotype. If you take a poll of latte drinkers they will be disproportionally liberal. Do the same for tobacco chewers and you'll see the opposite.

[kj]

Greg, why don't you point out the faulty logic represented by Gut and others (lack of) aruguments? It's a bit more obvious, and actually pertains to the subject at hand. kj.

[Mac1337]

Gutenberg wrote:
If only the morons in the White House and Pentagon hadn't turned the term into a euphemism for "torture." You did introduce a bit of doubt there though. I think that reporters would have used the clearer term "capture" for a general audience.

The man has information you need. Will you define what is NOT torture? Suggest alternatives that gets the information you want from him.

[Greg the dogsitter]

kj wrote:
Greg, why don't you point out the faulty logic represented by Gut and others (lack of) aruguments? It's a bit more obvious, and actually pertains to the subject at hand. kj.

Generally, time constraints.

$tevie, et. al., were ad hominem, and Gutenberg was mistaken, at least formally.

I don't usually disassemble every argument. The only time I've recently felt comfortable doing so wasn't even for an argument advocated by anyone here, so I gave it a bit more time. Generally, it'd be over the top.

[kj]

>>$tevie, et. al., were ad hominem, and Gutenberg was mistaken, at least formally.

In other words, she has nothing but belief to support her claims. Not a serious problem, informally . kj.

[Greg the dogsitter]

kj wrote:
>>$tevie, et. al., were ad hominem, and Gutenberg was mistaken, at least formally.

In other words, she has nothing but belief to support her claims. Not a serious problem, informally . kj.

Okeydokey. Any reason you're mentioning this to me instead of Gutenberg?

[NeverMind]

incognegro wrote:
swampy is a 'she'?!

I demand to see a birth certificate.