From: "Robert Comer" 

> 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