From: "Robert Comer" 

> If you can't understand it without special training Bob then its vague.

I totally disagree, we would need any specialists for anything if that were
generally true. And this kind of analysis is easy and in fact, I believe
it's being used to torture, rather than for keeping from torturing...

--
Bob Comer


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:45258179{at}w3.nls.net...
> If you can't understand it without special training Bob then its vague.
> That's the point.  Even with special training it would still be vague.  I
> disagree with your entire premise.  Give 3 people special training from 3
> different sources in 3 different countries and you'll get 9 different
> interpretations of what is meant by "affronts to personal dignity".
>
> Gary
>
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:45254ebf{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> OK so list for me what's allowed and what isn't when questioning a
>>> Muslim terrorist suspect?
>>
>> It's not my job to do and I don't have sufficient training (I was
>> computer science major, not sociology), though I do know a few even
>> though I haven't studied Muslim's enough, like making them see naked
>> people, and making them go unclothed themselves, making them watch when
>> others are having sex, burning or disparaging the Koran in front of
>> them.....
>>
>> And on that same note, our Army has got to have some idiots in charge --
>> having dark sunglasses on when talking to an Arab is pretty much
>> admitting you have something to hide, direct eye contact is extremely
>> *important*, they will not trust anyone who wont make direct eye contact
>> whatsoever. (This one has bothered me for a LONG time and yet I see our
>> troops not even making an effort to reach the Iraqi people.)
>>
>> --
>> Bob Comer
>>
>>
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:45254683$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> OK so list for me what's allowed and what isn't when questioning a
>>> Muslim terrorist suspect?  If its so easy and clear should be no problem
>>> for you to do.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> "Robert Comer"  wrote
in message
>>> news:45251522{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> If you think "affronts to personal dignity"
isn't vague then please
>>>>> list for me those things that are and aren't violations of that
>>>>> standard.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't vague at all if one has sociology training and a
very little
>>>> bit of time to study the group you're targeting.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bob Comer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>>>> news:45248ef1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> Its vague because its vague.  It is so vague that if
the same language
>>>>> were made part of some USA criminal statute the ACLU,
et al would
>>>>> immediately oppose it being imposed on any run of the mill
>>>>> killer/murderer as being unconstitutionally vague in
that it is so
>>>>> vague a person could not determine what is prohibited
and what isn't
>>>>> prohibited with any rational degree of certainty.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think "affronts to personal dignity"
isn't vague then please
>>>>> list for me those things that are and aren't violations of that
>>>>> standard.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>>>>> news:4524709a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>> No one else has found it "vague" so far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's only vague because it doesn't say what they
want it to say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Bob Comer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4524467d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:452402ff$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>> Because the language being dealt with is so vague ..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one else has found it "vague" so far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5