~>>  EC> The so-called "water treatment" was commonly applied. The
~>>  EC> victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position;
~>>  EC> and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into
~>>  EC> his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness. Pressure
~>>  EC> was then applied, sometimes by jumping upon his abdomen to
~>>  EC> force the water out. The usual practice was to revive the
~>>  EC> victim and successively repeat the process. There was

~>>  EC> THAT is the practice that YOU claim is identical to what
~>>  EC> was done by the US to three terrorists six years ago.

~>>  No, it is not.

 EC> It is not identical.  It is not even close.  That was the
 EC> point.  And yet you repeatedly claimed that it was.

 Your reading comprehension vies with your integrity of citation
 in the depths it sinks to.

 I never said *THAT* was identical. I said what Nielsen testified
 was done to him was identical. You have had that explained to
 you over and over, which makes your repeated false
 characturization obviously deliberate. A lie.

~>>  Consider then, this testimony about his treatment in Tokyo,by
~>>  CPT Chase Nielsen

 EC> He testified for two days, in addition to being interviewed
 EC> afterward and turning over the letters between him and
 EC> Doolittle to the National Archives.  Consider the more
 EC> complete description of his "treatment" since you have
 EC> repeatedly ignored it: specifically on the interrogation of
 EC> Nielsen, Meder, and Hallmark "The water torture was first.
 EC> The men were tied and stretched flat on their backs on the

 Attention all readers. Since Earl is obviously never going to
 actually read this, anyone else following the thread should pay
 attention.

 Notice that Earl's reference starts out by saying, "The men were
 tied and stretched flat..." IOW, this is someone else's
 description of what he understood happened.

 Notice my referencs has Nielsen saying, "I was put on my back on
 the floor, with my arms and legs strethed out..."

 IOW, my citation is from his testimony. Earl's is not.

 I gave a link to my source, Earl did not.

 Earl's description is actually quite a bit different than my
 source. So much so as to suggest it was third hand.

 From lawofwar.org/protected persons.htm
 **************************************************************************
 Consider then, this testimony about his treatment in Tokyo,by
 CPT Chase Nielsen a member of the aircrew of one of the bombers
 on the Doolittle Raid against Japan in April, 1942. Captain
 Nielsen was captured by the Japanese in China and returned to
 Japan for interrogation.

 Q: What other physical treatment was administered to you at
 that time?

 A: Well, I was given what they call the water cure.

 Q: Explain to the Commission what that was.

 A: Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs
 stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was
 wrapped around my face and put across my face and water was
 poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost
 unconscious from strangulation, then they would let me up until
 I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again.

 Q: When you regained consciousness would they keep asking you
 questions?

 A: Yes sir they did.

 Q: How long did this treatment continue?

 A: About twenty minutes.

 Q: What was your sensation when they were pouring water on the
 towel, what did you physically feel?

 A: Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping
 between life and death.

 /United States v. Sawada/ et a., Trial Record, Volume I,
 p.55.18 March, 1946.
 **************************************************************************

 EC> And now you know that he WAS drowning, which establishes
 EC> intent behind your falsehoods.

 Attention all readers. Since Earl is obviously never going to
 actually read this, anyone else following the thread should pay
 attention.

 Notice that Earl's reference starts out by saying, "The men were
 tied and stretched flat..." IOW, this is someone else's
 description of what he understood happened.

 Notice my referencs has Nielsen saying, "I was put on my back on
 the floor, with my arms and legs strethed out..."

 IOW, my citation is from his testimony. Earl's is not.

 I gave a link to my source, Earl did not.

 Earl's description is actually quite a bit different than my
 source. So much so as to suggest it was third hand.

 Earl refuses to link his source, I gave my link. That alone
 establishes beyond doubt that I am not the one guilty of
 falsehoods.

 Clearly Earl is the one guilty of falsehoods.

~>>  /United States v. Sawada/ et a., Trial Record, Volume I,
~>>  p.55.18 March, 1946.

 EC> The Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, volume 5, has a
 EC> rather extensive 24 page summary of the Sawada case.  It
 EC> indicates, among other things, that his interrogators were
 EC> not tried for torture at all.  You said there were Japanese

 Give a link to your source. And if they were not tried, why was
 Nielsen testifying? See above, it's a "Trial Record".

 EC> prosecuted "for using the same method" that US
 EC> interrogators used.  And you claimed that "one of those
 EC> tortured THAT WAY" was Nielsen.

 Yep, and so far that is what all the real evidence shows.

 EC> But now you know that they
 EC> did not use "the same method" and you know that Nielsen was
 EC> not interrogated "that way" but in a far more painful and
 EC> dangerous way.

 I know you keep claiming that, but you refuse to link to your
 source.

 EC> Sadly the facts mean nothing to you.  You stick with your
 EC> story in spite of the facts being to the contrary.

 The facts I have presented I have linked to. You have nothing to
 link to.

 ...

 EC> But now you don't have your ignorance plea to fall back on,
 EC> which leaves mendacity.  You ceppaed the paragraph, so here
 EC> is the rest restored:

 You keep repeating the same material, but never provide a link,
 or even your source by name. So, your material is not credible.

 ...

~>>  EC> You claimed that the same thing is done by US
~>>  EC> interrogators, but at this point no sane person would
~>>  EC> believe you.  And you claimed that Japanese were convicted
~>>  EC> of war crimes for doing THE SAME THING that US

~>>  Now you are confusing me with someone else.

 EC> It was not "someone else" who cited the "post war tribunal
 EC> precedent."  You did.  You just didn't know what it was.

 When did I ever use the words, "post war tribunal precedent"?

 You are making that up. As you so often do.

 EC> Now you do, but again the facts mean nothing to you.

 When you provide verifiable facts they will mean something.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a