Hitchens gets waterboarded

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by bsak16

There are other ways but again we have people in this country who don't like wiretapping or spying on others because it "invades their civil rights".

Now that I know you would readily trade liberty for security, I know all that I need to know about your view. Count me as a person who is glad that there have been people in the history of the United States that weren't lining up to make that same trade.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i implore you, right now - videotape yourself telling your spouse that you would rather her die than someone who could give info that would keep her alive be tortured.

until then, please do not post in this thread. i beg of you. your honor and word is at stake here. i'm essentially telling you i believe you're full of shit. you videotape yourself so we can see the reaction from your spouse when you tell her the life and wellbeing of someone who would bring her harm is of a higher importance to her. i'm calling you out - you are not a man if you don't do this. either that, or your word in this community is garbage.

i can not stand bullshit. i can not stand for it and won't stand for it. back up your words.

My wife would probably leave me if I told her that I would have someone tortured in order to save her life or the life of our children. And vice versa.

Why is that hard to believe? Millions of people have been willing to die, or see their loved ones die, for American principles throughout history, and the principle of "the US does not torture" seems like one of the crucial ones.

Some people think that how you live is more important than how long you live. I'm one of them, I guess.

[flere-imsaho]

The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.


The upside, however, is that we can maybe use their spinning to generate energy!

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You never said that? Your post was assuming that if we don't torture, then we have to go and ask them nicely. You didn't allow for other possibilities.

Wow, you're really misrepresenting the whole issue. No one is against wiretapping. They're against warrantless wiretapping.

You really like to extrapolate from a few words in my post. I really hope you aren't a mathematician. I never assumed anything...when you assume you make an ass out of yourself. I took the most extreme case and you ran with it.

I've heard the arguement many times...how there were so many ways that we could've stopped the attacks. One was by interrogating people who we were certain were terrorist in custody. Not the only way or reason but it was one of them.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Now that I know you would readily trade liberty for security, I know all that I need to know about your view. Count me as a person who is glad that there have been people in the history of the United States that weren't lining up to make that same trade.

I think you are pretty naive to think that if the government wanted to watch you without you knowing they could.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by bsak16

I think you are pretty naive to think that if the government wanted to watch you without you knowing they could.

Difference between you and I is that I don't approve of it and I want it stopped.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by bsak16

I think you are pretty naive to think that if the government wanted to watch you without you knowing they could.

Which is exactly why there are so many people working towards making sure the government is accountable to the people, and not the other way around. Even if there are plenty of citizens who don't understand our Constitution well enough to understand why.

[st.cronin]

I spent 6 years in the armed forces, and spent some time working with army intelligence, and even went through some of the SERE courses that sometimes come up in these conversations. There are psychological techniques used in interrogation that work, and there are psychological techniques used in interrogation that don't work - resisting interrogation is almost entirely a psychological exercise. The psychological techniques that do work can resemble torture, or may use elements that could be described by a reasonable person as torture. The blanket statement "torture doesn't work" is only correct if you are speaking on average, and define torture as what happens in 24 - its mostly true that beating on people or pulling their teeth will not elicit cooperation, at least on average. The fact is, however, that it can be part of a successful interrogation (although probably not by itself). However, most successful interrogations do not need anything resembling torture, but DO require some significant advantage for the interrogator - interrogation is mostly a psych-out, not a bullying/beating operation. To be good at interrogation you need psychologists, not thugs.

The moral question is similarly blurry - nobody doubts that interrogation is ok, nobody seriously doubts that we are the good guys and terrorists are the bad guys, and therefore that it is morally ok for the good guys to acquire an advantage in the interrogation game. Likewise nobody is going to argue that pulling teeth on a terrorist suspect is something we want to sanction.

In other words, this is, like most issues, a complicated subject, more complicated than people want to allow.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by bsak16

I've heard the arguement many times...how there were so many ways that we could've stopped the attacks. One was by interrogating people who we were certain were terrorist in custody.

Ironically, of course, there were several Al-Qaeda members in custody prior and after 9/11 who were giving the FBI (who were not using torture to interrogate them) good information that would eventually lead to several good arrests. Unfortunately, once the CIA got a hold of them and started torturing them, they clammed up.

Also ironically, one of the "many ways that we could've stopped the attacks" had nothing to do with torture. The information was already gathered, without torture, and if George Bush or Condi Rice had bothered to read the intelligence briefings....

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Waterboarding isn't meant as a deterrent, it is meant as an information gathering tool. Nobody expects the fear of waterboarding to keep anyone from doing anything.

Oh, I know that. I was responding to HA's dumb-ass comment.

(No offense, HA, you know I love you).

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Ironically, of course, there were several Al-Qaeda members in custody prior and after 9/11 who were giving the FBI (who were not using torture to interrogate them) good information that would eventually lead to several good arrests. Unfortunately, once the CIA got a hold of them and started torturing them, they clammed up.

Also ironically, one of the "many ways that we could've stopped the attacks" had nothing to do with torture. The information was already gathered, without torture, and if George Bush or Condi Rice had bothered to read the intelligence briefings....

I won't disagree with anything you said in the last sentence. But I would like to point out that it doesn't have to be physical abuse to be torture, just like there is physical and psychological abuse at home...it can be that way when interrogating a suspect.

Some people react differently to situations and there are people out there that think only physical tourture is the way to go. I believe that it could be one or the other...or a mix of both. Either way you look at it though, it is still torture.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Likewise nobody is going to argue that pulling teeth on a terrorist suspect is something we want to sanction.

Actually, lots of people are arguing for this (and much worse).

[larrymcg421]

BTW, we could run with bsak's hypothetical a number of ways:

So you are telling me if giving national security secrets out that saved the life of your child, wife, or parents...that you would rather have them die than give the terrorists this information?

[Dr. Sak]

edit: delete.

Not worth my time.

[st.cronin]

There's probably a better way for me to put that. What I meant is, nobody is seriously arguing that we should embrace the Jack Bauer model. Even the most ardent official defenders of waterboarding are simply saying it should be an option open to interrogators, not that it has some magical purpose.

Part of my point is that whatever effect interrogators hope to create with waterboarding, its the effect that is the point. An experiment like what Hitchens did is really pointless, imo.

[flere-imsaho]

Nice post-and-run by Cam, btw.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

There's probably a better way for me to put that. What I meant is, nobody is seriously arguing that we should embrace the Jack Bauer model. Even the most ardent official defenders of waterboarding are simply saying it should be an option open to interrogators, not that it has some magical purpose.

You put it 10 million times more eloquant than I could have.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

What I meant is, nobody is seriously arguing that we should embrace the Jack Bauer model.

Antonin Scalia. Michael Chertoff.

The Guantánamo lawyers charged with devising interrogation techniques were inspired by the exploits of Jack Bauer in the American TV series 24.

Myers wrongly believed interrogation techniques had been taken from the army's field manual.

The lawyers, all political appointees, who pushed through the interrogation techniques were Alberto Gonzales, David Addington and William Haynes. Also involved were Doug Feith, Rumsfeld's under-secretary for policy, and Jay Bybee and John Yoo, two assistant attorney generals.

Source.

Maybe no one (in the Administration) believes in the Jack Bauer model now, but at one time they certainly did.

Edit: Oh, and pretty much the entire staff of the National Review thinks waterboarding should be used early and often.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

There's probably a better way for me to put that. What I meant is, nobody is seriously arguing that we should embrace the Jack Bauer model. Even the most ardent official defenders of waterboarding are simply saying it should be an option open to interrogators, not that it has some magical purpose.

Part of my point is that whatever effect interrogators hope to create with waterboarding, its the effect that is the point. An experiment like what Hitchens did is really pointless, imo.

Well, we really have two arguments here.

1. Is waterboarding torture?
2. Should we torture suspects to get information?

Hitchens experiment is speaking to the 1st question. No doubt some people couldn't care less what the answer is to question 1. They think it should be an option either way.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well, we really have two arguments here.

1. Is waterboarding torture?
2. Should we torture suspects to get information?

Hitchens experiment is speaking to the 1st question. No doubt some people couldn't care less what the answer is to question 1. They think it should be an option either way.

Well, I was trying to say that both of those questions are basically devoid of meaning. Interrogation is essentially a psychological exercise. There is a wide menu of options available to the interrogator to increase his advantage. To argue that waterboarding shouldn't be used, you can't (imo) simply say "its torture!" I mean, you can, but torture is such a loaded word - essentially when you make that claim you've demolished any chance at having a meaningful discussion about ethics in interrogation.

The questions should be

1. Does waterboarding work?
2. Is the effect of waterboarding, in the context of an interrogation, something which meets our minimum expectations of an ethical interrogation?

Its possible the answer to these questions is "no."

[Tekneek]

So, it doesn't matter whether something is torture or not, you should just avoid the question entirely so you keep your options open? That sounds very convenient.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, I was trying to say that both of those questions are basically devoid of meaning. Interrogation is essentially a psychological exercise. There is a wide menu of options available to the interrogator to increase his advantage. To argue that waterboarding shouldn't be used, you can't (imo) simply say "its torture!" I mean, you can, but torture is such a loaded word - essentially when you make that claim you've demolished any chance at having a meaningful discussion about ethics in interrogation.

The questions should be

1. Does waterboarding work?
2. Is the effect of waterboarding, in the context of an interrogation, something which meets our minimum expectations of an ethical interrogation?

Its possible the answer to these questions is "no."

See, I think you're essentially asking the same questions in a different order. Your question 2 is pretty much how I would define torture. Your question 1 definitely factors in to whether or not people think we should use it. I do think the answer to both questions is no, but I could see someone thinking the answer to 1 is yes and 2 is still no.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

So, it doesn't matter whether something is torture or not, you should just avoid the question entirely so you keep your options open? That sounds very convenient.

No, that's not even remotely close to what I'm saying.

[JPhillips]

I think we'd all agree that the Israeli's are more experienced at dealing with jihadists. They don't use techniques like this because they have significantly better results with gaining the trust of those they've captured. To argue that that there's no other way to get info than torture is completely wrong.

[Tekneek]

To argue that waterboarding shouldn't be used, you can't (imo) simply say "its torture!" I mean, you can, but torture is such a loaded word - essentially when you make that claim you've demolished any chance at having a meaningful discussion about ethics in interrogation.

Sounds to me like you're saying you shouldn't call something torture until you've decided whether you want to use it or not. If you think waterboarding is ok, you don't want to call it torture because that sounds bad and could get you into some trouble.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

See, I think you're essentially asking the same questions in a different order. Your question 2 is pretty much how I would define torture. Your question 1 definitely factors in to whether or not people think we should use it. I do think the answer to both questions is no, but I could see someone thinking the answer to 1 is yes and 2 is still no.

I suspect the answer to both questions is "mostly no", also, I simply object to using inflammatory language in serious discussions. Calling interrogators "torturers" is not a good way to get your point across. Its like asking "is George Bush evil?"

Also, I am sure that there are many, many other techniques used in interrogation which a reasonable person would not think to call "torture" which Hitchens (or almost anybody) would find close to unbearable. To focus on waterboarding is really to avoid the interesting part of the discussion.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, I was trying to say that both of those questions are basically devoid of meaning. Interrogation is essentially a psychological exercise.

If interrogation is essentially a psychological exercise, wouldn't you agree that when it becomes a physical exercise it crosses the line into torture? Asking people questions is very different than forcing a towel over their airway and pouring water down their nose and throat. Torture is, after all, essentially a physical exercise.

This also makes me think about the dismissive ways in which some have treated the reports of how long people were able to last; for example, the Hitchens article references the unbelievable rumor that KSM lasted for two minutes without breaking. There's no way he didn't give in for two minutes. But I can absolutely see how his interrogators might have continued to waterboard him for two minutes even after he was panicking and trying not to drown, which is one of the specific concerns many of us feel for using torture as a tool. Does such an image feed the primal beast inside many of us for revenge at any cost? Sure. Does it help make America more secure, knowing that across the Middle East there are thousands of fifteen-year-old kids hearing about how the big bad country across the sea is torturing their fathers? Doubtful.

This idea of muddying the waters by framing the issue as an imaginative exercise rather than an actual practice doesn't serve us well in trying to determine what methods we should and should not use. The issue of determining the parameters of an ethical interrogation is more helpful. What complicates the matter is that we can't agree on the limits to what torture constitutes. But it's frustrating that we should even be having to parse out the subtleties of such things -- my own hope for Americans would be that anything coming close to torture should be given a wide berth, in part because if we don't hold ourselves to a higher standard it will become more and more difficult to lie to each other about how our country is morally better than others.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Ironically, of course, there were several Al-Qaeda members in custody prior and after 9/11 who were giving the FBI (who were not using torture to interrogate them) good information that would eventually lead to several good arrests. Unfortunately, once the CIA got a hold of them and started torturing them, they clammed up.

I'm not a pro-torture guy but how would you possibly know this? And some point, doesn't someone in custody just not have any more info? What's your source that torture caused anyone specific to "clam up" and withold information.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

If interrogation is essentially a psychological exercise, wouldn't you agree that when it becomes a physical exercise it crosses the line into torture? Asking people questions is very different than forcing a towel over their airway and pouring water down their nose and throat. Torture is, after all, essentially a physical exercise.

I disagree with this. There are psychological methods available which are pretty horrifying. I understand your point, though, and I think we all agree that there SHOULD be an ethical boundary for interrogation.

I also don't think the desire for revenge has anything to do with this. I believe interrogators want to have successful interrogations, not just make somebody piss their pants and cry. There is no doubt in my mind that there are SOME situations where waterboarding or the threat of waterboarding would result in a successful interrogation. That doesn't mean it would be the only thing that would work in those situations, though, so then it becomes a question of value and ethics - is there value in having this method available, in terms of increasing the success of our interrogations? And does this method violate our minimum ethical expectations? An interrogators point of view might well be "I need this method to be able to do my job", focusing on the marginal advantage he perceives, and overlooking or understating the defective ethics of the practice. But that doesn't make him a sadist.

[Tekneek]

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.

"Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigat...ory?id=1356870

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

war is not pretty. sometimes you gotta get your hands dirty to show people you mean business.

i'm all for anything that keeps me, and more importantly - my loved ones - safe. i go by many motto's and sayings, and one i'm fond of is "better you, than me". if it's between me and the jihadist and one of us needs to be tortured, i rather the jihadist or terrorist. as long as it doesn't happen to me i have an amazing ability to direct my concern elsewhere. these people know what's in store for them by taking up that lifestyle. don't become a jihadist then. easy.

The Weimar Republic would have loved you.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not a pro-torture guy but how would you possibly know this? And some point, doesn't someone in custody just not have any more info? What's your source that torture caused anyone specific to "clam up" and withold information.

I direct the distinguished gentleman to my post previously in the thread:

Jack Cloonan, FBI Special Agent (full article in link, description/summary below):

An FBI special agent from 1977 to 2002, Cloonan started working Al Qaeda cases in the mid-1990s. In this interview, he explains why he believes the FBI's method of interrogation is successful. He describes how the FBI cultivated former Al Qaeda operatives Jamal al-Fadl and Ali Mohammed as cooperative sources in the years before 9/11. Cloonan also recounts the FBI's battle with the CIA over custody of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who ran an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and who was one of the highest-ranking Al Qaeda operatives captured in the first months of the war in Afghanistan. Cloonan says al-Libi was revealing information that could have been useful in the prosecutions of Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, before he was transferred to CIA custody, duct-taped, put in the back of a truck, and sent to Egypt for more aggressive interrogation. Cloonan also discusses the FBI's role at Guantanamo and why he believes little good intelligence came out of there. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on July 13, 2005.

Furthermore, in those links posted previously you'll see a number of interrogators who suffered setbacks with their detainees when other interrogators employed torture techniques after the detainee had been giving good information while not under duress.

This, I'm sure, is the basis for while many prominent military and intelligence leaders (and Israel's Mossad for goodness sake) maintain that torture isn't effective and may in fact be detrimental.

[gkb]

I don't have much to add to this discussion (yet I'm posting anyway)...flere, your post listing all of those sources and what they had to say about the ineffectiveness of torture was an eye-opener for me. Thanks for sharing all of that...good stuff.

[Karlifornia]

I disagree with anyone who says America is spineless if it isn't willing to torture people. What happened to being better than the other guy? I thought this country was a superpower that lead by example.

Also, how long until college frat parties start doing "Beerboarding"?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I suspect the answer to both questions is "mostly no", also, I simply object to using inflammatory language in serious discussions. Calling interrogators "torturers" is not a good way to get your point across. Its like asking "is George Bush evil?"

But it's not like that. "Evil" is a subjective term that we could debate for hours. "Torture" is a term that has a historically established meaning. And it's a meaning that included tactics like waterboarding right up until the US started using them.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Dola: So circumcision is torture? Ear piercing your infant is torture? Spanking a child is torture?

No, but ear piercing an infant does seem ridiculous.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Difference between you and I is that I don't approve of it and I want it stopped.

"...yes, Mr. President, you heard me correctly - we need to stop all wiretapping AT ONCE because Tekneek wants it to be stopped."

[Fidatelo]

Ok, here is another waterboarding video, this is absolutely brutal. Seriously, it's hard to watch.

hxxp://current.com/items/86417301_kaj_larsen_goes_waterboarding

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

"...yes, Mr. President, you heard me correctly - we need to stop all wiretapping AT ONCE because Tekneek wants it to be stopped."

That works for me.

[flere-imsaho]

Instead of starting a new thread, and since this seems to be the general-purpose torture thread, I thought I'd post what I heard on NPR this morning:

This is a story about two interrogation programs — one run by the U.S. military, the other run by the CIA. The military program was focused on getting important al-Qaida suspects in Iraq to talk. The CIA operation zeroed in on important al-Qaida suspects from around the world. Both programs had similar goals, but they operated under very difficult rules.

Earlier this month, former CIA Director Michael Hayden was on Fox News defending the CIA's enhanced interrogation program.

"The use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer," he said emphatically. "It really did work." As Hayden and others see it, the U.S. had to use tough techniques — some called it torture — to battle al-Qaida.

Matthew Alexander is an advocate of a different kind of interrogation — one that builds rapport, like the kind of technique you see on television cop shows. Alexander was a military interrogator in Iraq and doesn't see the need for rough questioning.

"One of my best techniques for building rapport was to bring into the interrogation booth a copy, my copy, of the Koran and to recite a verse out of it or to ask questions about Islam," he said.

It is important to know that Matthew Alexander wasn't just any run-of-the-mill military interrogator. He was in charge of an interrogation team working on one of the most important counterterrorism operations of the war: the hunt for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man in charge of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Learning From Challenges

Alexander and his team arrived in Iraq in March 2006 — well after the abuses at Abu Ghraib forced the military to reform its interrogation process. By the time Alexander's team was on the ground, a military task force had been searching for Zarqawi for three years. But it took Alexander's team just two months of questioning detainees to get one of them to reveal the location of Zarqawi's safe house. Based on that information, the al-Qaida leader was killed in a military operation in June 2006.

"I know on the chase to Zarqawi we had several people during that chase who didn't talk," Alexander says. "But that was OK. We used the opportunities with detainees we couldn't convince to cooperate to become better interrogators. And it was those skills we developed in those interrogations that allowed us to break the detainees who led us to Zarqawi."

Alexander's experience in Iraq is particularly instructive in the context of the current debate over whether harsh interrogation techniques work. That's because Alexander and his team followed international standards for questioning and didn't use any of the rough techniques the CIA adopted. And yet, without waterboarding or stress positions, Alexander says, he not only helped track down al-Qaida's top man in Iraq but also managed to give the military better information.

"When you use coercion, a detainee might tell you the location of a house, but if you use cooperation they will tell you if the house is booby-trapped, and that's a very important difference," says Alexander. He says his success in Iraq proves that torture isn't necessary to break a terrorist.

Philip Zelikow, a senior counselor to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, agrees.

"Against very dedicated, very dangerous Islamist terrorists in Iraq in a raging war, we did not need to adopt the extreme interrogation methods that the CIA was using in the program it designed in 2002 and 2003," he says.

Zelikow says the comparison of the two programs — one in Iraq and one by the CIA — allows one to judge whether harsh techniques were necessary. "Since the alternatives are effective and don't have all these downsides, including all the moral and legal issues that come with them," he says, "it seems like a very clear choice."

Even if Hayden is right about the information the U.S. got from its interrogations, Zelikow says, it came at too high a cost

Any added emphasis mine.

[Tekneek]

I thought this was being re-upped because Sean Hannity will be waterboarded soon.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I thought this was being re-upped because Sean Hannity will be waterboarded soon.

That will never happen.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That will never happen.

Oh. He should at least say he was joking. His silence on the issue says a lot, though.

[Toddzilla]

John McCain was tortured, and he lied his ass off to get it to stop.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

John McCain was tortured, and he lied his ass off to get it to stop.

Haven't we already redefined torture such that, under today's definition, he wasn't tortured as much as we previously thought?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Anthony

i implore you, right now - videotape yourself telling your spouse that you would rather her die than someone who could give info that would keep her alive be tortured.

By which you mean, you would rather have her die than have innumerable people tortured, one of which might know something that might save her life. Or how about you would rather have innumerable people tortured so that we could obtain information which is false or incomplete and she dies anyway.

It's well documented that things don't work like this in real life. We don't know who has the information we need, we don't even know what the information is, and torturing is shown not to produce accurate intelligence. How about we spend our time and money actually enhancing our intelligence service rather than ensuring we have the ability to torture people once we fail at it?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Haven't we already redefined torture such that, under today's definition, he wasn't tortured as much as we previously thought?

No, the people doing it to him were brown, so it was still torture.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by King of New York

My wife would probably leave me if I told her that I would have someone tortured in order to save her life or the life of our children. And vice versa.

Why is that hard to believe? Millions of people have been willing to die, or see their loved ones die, for American principles throughout history, and the principle of "the US does not torture" seems like one of the crucial ones.

Some people think that how you live is more important than how long you live. I'm one of them, I guess.

Thank you. People can disagree on issues around torture. But let's not characterize the only "manly" action as being doing whatever you have to to keep your family safe. Many people, many families have principles that they find greater than their safety.

In fact, many soldiers go off in harm's way, knowing that if they're killed they will cause great anguish to their families, maybe leave their children without a parent. We don't force them to videotape telling their spouse that they would rather leave them a widow and single parent than take a safer job, but that's what they do because they believe in something.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Come the fuck on.

You're not cutting off the fucking foreskin to get the damned kid to tell where he hid goshdamn cookies. That was silly man.

Let the record show that Schmidty has juxtaposed fuck, fucking, and damned with the ever popular goshdamn, to hilarious effect. Well done.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Come on man. I respect you, but I just don't see your argument at ALL.

Anyway, I didn't direct any of the expletives at you, I just use them in general, as most people know.

Ping: Sndvls' signature