Meet your new thread, same as the old thread. - Page 232

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apparently you are confusing your own "24"-related fantasies with what actually happened. Here's the key:

According to Higazi, the investigators coerced him into confessing to a role in 9/11. Higazi first adamantly denied any involvement with 9/11 and could not believe what was happening to him. Then, he says, the investigator said his family would go through hell in Egypt, where they torture people like Saddam Hussein. Higazy then realized he had a choice: he could continue denying the radio was his and his family suffers ungodly torture in Egypt or he confesses and his family is spared. ...

So Higazy "confesses" and he's processed by the criminal justice system. His future is quite bleak. Meanwhile, an airline pilot later shows up at the hotel and asks for his radio back. This is like something out of the movies. The radio belonged to the pilot, not Higazy, and Higazy was free to go, the victim of horrible timing. Higazi was innocent!

Threatened in this way, Higazy "confessed" to something he hadn't done.

What's bizarre is that you really aren't interested in whether the FBI got got information by mistreating him. It didn't. They did bad police work instead of good police work, and as a result they got bad information. Americans were less well protected as a result. This completely escapes you, though, because what you care about is whether the FBI was acting tough.

1 you're quoting blogs as facts again.
2 yes, it turns out it wasn't his communication equipment. you do realize that when the blogger you quote uses the term "radio" he's trying to bend your emotions to make you believe there was no reason for the FBI to worry, right? Oh, I forgot, you aren't capable of questioning an anti-US blog.

How was he mistreated? If he hadn't confessed do you see him being released BEFORE the pilot shows up? do you feel he should have been w/o a confession and before the pilot shows?

I'm having second thoughts. looks to me like you got is sussed out. Maybe you can train the FBI in questioning. Pay cut for you maybe, but duty calls!

Remember to support all the advice in your advice pamplet with appropriate blog citations.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-23-2007, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
1 you're quoting blogs as facts again.

Read the circuit court's decision, assclown. "For the purposes of the summary judgment motion, Templeton did not contest that Higazy's statements were coerced."

The better ploy would have to feign the kind of sophisticated ignorance that Spanky likes to deploy from time to time and pretend that we just can't know anything about what really happened without a full trial. Next time you can remember to do that.

Quote:

2 yes, it turns out it wasn't his communication equipment. you do realize that when the blogger you quote uses the term "radio" he's trying to bend your emotions to make you believe there was no reason for the FBI to worry, right? Oh, I forgot, you aren't capable of questioning an anti-US blog.

I never said the FBI shouldn't worry. You seem awfully hung up on the FBI's state of mind, ex ante, as if that's all that matters.

Quote:

How was he mistreated?

You didn't read any of it, did you. Figures.

Quote:

If he hadn't confessed do you see him being released BEFORE the pilot shows up?

No, and I'm fine with that.

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Read the circuit court's decision, assclown.

I'm sorry, this is from a circuit court decision: "

So Higazy "confesses" and he's processed by the criminal justice system. His future is quite bleak. Meanwhile, an airline pilot later shows up at the hotel and asks for his radio back. This is like something out of the movies. The radio belonged to the pilot, not Higazy, and Higazy was free to go, the victim of horrible timing. Higazi was innocent!"

"

or are you completely full of shit? that's rhetorical.

Quote:

No, and I'm fine with that.

poll: how many people that actually think for themselves believe this?

quick question: have you ever said to your kid "if you don't pick up your toys in the next 5 minutes then I will throw them away?"

Did you intend to throw them away really? once some other kid at school told your kid her parents didn't throw the toys away it didn't work so well, correct?

Can you see how the interrogation technique could be deemed classified?

again rhetorical.

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm sorry, this is from a circuit court decision: "

So Higazy "confesses" and he's processed by the criminal justice system. His future is quite bleak. Meanwhile, an airline pilot later shows up at the hotel and asks for his radio back. This is like something out of the movies. The radio belonged to the pilot, not Higazy, and Higazy was free to go, the victim of horrible timing. Higazi was innocent!"

"

or are you completely full of shit? that's rhetorical.

poll: how many people that actually think for themselves believe this?

quick question: have you ever said to your kid "if you don't pick up your toys in the next 5 minutes then I will throw them away?"

Did you intend to throw them away really? once some other kid at school told your kid her parents didn't throw the toys away it didn't work so well, correct?

Can you see how the interrogation technique could be deemed classified?

again rhetorical.

Okay. i counting wins over ty rt and nb on this:

HC

398-21

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-23-2007, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
quick question: have you ever said to your kid "if you don't pick up your toys in the next 5 minutes then I will throw them away?"

No. Because if he doesn't, I either have to follow through or back down, either of which would make me look foolish.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-23-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Okay. i counting wins over ty rt and nb on this:

HC

398-21

You'd better count 'em any way you can.

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2007, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You'd better count 'em any way you can.

really, i have to remind myself, there is no reason to post here. on FB ppnyc calls me a racist, and I can deal with it, but I'm called a racist here by people i respect, i believe merely because I question their statements. I started off a PB sock, but i'm afraid the pb has become a more normal outpost of DU.

taxwonk · 10-23-2007, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
he is sol, or should be. do you think he should be able to collect from the government?

I know we aren't supposed to say you guys live in lala land when it comes to security, but help me here: a guy was found near ground zero with some pretty suspicious stuff. you say we can't torture, I believe you think we shouldn't hand him over to say Egypt, so what do we do? take his word that he did nothing wrong and move on, let him go?

ummmm, he was mistaken identity- he had no good information.

1. Nobody said that the Gov was wrong for holding the guy until they determined he wasn't a threat. On the other hand, that doesn't excuse threatening to turn his family over to the jackals. Yeah, the guy should be able to collect. And the interrogator ought to be fired.

2. Your point about it being a case of mistaken identity doesn't really answer the fact that the threat of harm to his family produced false intelligence. The mistaken identity guarantees the intelligence was going to be false, but the latter would not necessarily prove true.

3. I suppose at this point it's rather futile to keep pointing this out, but, if you really believe in the values we are supposedly fighting to keep, then you can't really argue in good faith that the times require abandoning those freedoms. The argument is disingenuous. After all, who's going to play God and determine when we have to uphold freedom and when we can sacrifice it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg?!

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2007, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
1. Nobody said that the Gov was wrong for holding the guy until they determined he wasn't a threat. On the other hand, that doesn't excuse threatening to turn his family over to the jackals. Yeah, the guy should be able to collect. And the interrogator ought to be fired.

2. Your point about it being a case of mistaken identity doesn't really answer the fact that the threat of harm to his family produced false intelligence. The mistaken identity guarantees the intelligence was going to be false, but the latter would not necessarily prove true.

3. I suppose at this point it's rather futile to keep pointing this out, but, if you really believe in the values we are supposedly fighting to keep, then you can't really argue in good faith that the times require abandoning those freedoms. The argument is disingenuous. After all, who's going to play God and determine when we have to uphold freedom and when we can sacrifice it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg?!

I'm sorry. where is the point that we turned over the family to Egyptian intelligence instead of just saying we would mentioned?

taxwonk · 10-23-2007, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you guys had been in charge for 8 years. the world had gotten fucked. after 9/11 there was an unworkable number of suspects and we had to get through them quickly.

you have no tie to reality, but that isn't surprising. what gets me is on FB the one person who argues with you has arrived at the exact same conclusion- you copy arguments form somewhere and dig your heels in, and the guys you don't like are always wrong and the guys you do like are always right-

this is bizarre. A guy was found with that equipment where he was found (Notbob, I never post w/o having read the underlying stuff he was tied to the equipment, I realize incorrectly). We had too many people to examine to "do good police work". Clinton's negligence is too blame, if you want to blame anyone for people who were "mistreated." But I know you can't admit that- "Clinton had doneeverything he could!"

Clinton? Have you been drinking Penske's boxed wine again?

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2007, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Clinton? Have you been drinking Penske's boxed wine again?

no mas. you guys are right. turn off the lights when you're done here. bye.

taxwonk · 10-23-2007, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm sorry. where is the point that we turned over the family to Egyptian intelligence instead of just saying we would mentioned?

If all we are differing over is whether or not false threats used as coercion is actionable or not, I call a draw. I personally think it should be, but I can see where reasonable minds could differ over whether the act is tortious or merely reprehensible.

And by the way, when I tell Monster that if he doesn't put a toy away/stop annoying me or his sister with it/stopp swinging it around the dining room, etc., I will throw it out, I mean it. And I've done it.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-23-2007, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
really, i have to remind myself, there is no reason to post here. on FB ppnyc calls me a racist, and I can deal with it, but I'm called a racist here by people i respect, i believe merely because I question their statements. I started off a PB sock, but i'm afraid the pb has become a more normal outpost of DU.

I don't believe RT was calling you a racist.

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2007, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
If all we are differing over is whether or not false threats used as coercion is actionable or not, I call a draw. I personally think it should be, but I can see where reasonable minds could differ over whether the act is tortious or merely reprehensible.

And by the way, when I tell Monster that if he doesn't put a toy away/stop annoying me or his sister with it/stopp swinging it around the dining room, etc., I will throw it out, I mean it. And I've done it.

wonk, I love you. you know that. but I've answered this before. summary: if we can't use psychological or physical urging and we can't hand off to rougher countries what can we do? before Ty said there were lots of psychological things that made more sense, i guess I just thought this treat might have been one of them. Maybe Ty is keeping the really good psychological tricks secrets? I understand if that is the case, and I agreed it should be kept secret.

Hank Chinaski · 10-23-2007, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't believe RT was calling you a racist.

no. I'm just thin skinned. What if I had said the equivalent of this to you? "This is hard to believe, but a lot of people, even people whose first names are Abdullah, have no good information."