The Torture Question

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 21:30
VIEWED: 10585
PAGE 9 of 16

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:14 PM

Those would be "sites." But I told you I just recalling them from memory, I will need to dig them up, which I didn't feel like doing at 1 am last night.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:17 PM

Clearly I need to dig this up again, because we need to move this discussion from "stress positions" to cutting peoples fingers off, which is what I recall was actually going on. Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a wall, but the official story is spin to cover the other story which was already breaking. Anyway, I'm about to leave for the weekend, but I'll look it up when I get back.

GEEZER

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Those would be "sites." But I told you I just recalling them from memory, I will need to dig them up, which I didn't feel like doing at 1 am last night.

Please grab a dictionary and look up the word "cite". You may then apologize.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, October 28, 2005 5:32 PM

Geezer, let's put everything back in context:

Quote:
I'm suggesting that Rummy doesn't care how actionable intel is developed.*... I'm also suggesting that he believes he can make a reasonable case that the Afgan and Iraqi prisoners are not lawful combatants, and therefore outside the conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war. And although I haven't gotten into it here, I'm not so sure I would consider most of the approved coercive techniques described in the Frontline story as "torture". Much of the physical abuse that has occurred and resulted in charges is beyond what was authorized.

And I said

Quote:
You may want to w/draw that statement*

Now you are saying

Quote:
"The point is that Rummy wants these people tortured." I don't think it's Rummy wanted people tortured at all.Rummy wanted intel. He got opinions from administration lawyers on what coercion was permissible to apply. He also got opinions on the status of the detainees as lawful combatants. He based guidelines on that information.

So, what you're saying is that Rummy DID care....

And besides, it was all the fault of those underlings...
And besides illegal combatants aren't covered by the Geneva Convention...
And besides, all the detainees deserve torture because they murder and torture too...

Tsk tsk. Geezer, as a parent and a one-time child yourself you should know that ONE explanation is more convincing than four! You should have left it at: "RUMMY CARES". The rest just sound like rationalizations and excuses, which I'm sure they are not.

BTW you never DID get into what you consider torture. I'm still curious.

Please don't think they give a shit.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 28, 2005 5:37 PM

By the way, I'm going to remind people that the pictures that we saw from Abu Ghraib were the LEAST offensive. The LEAST offensive. What happened in Abu Ghraib wasn't limited to dog collars and naked pyramids. Keep that in mind.

Please don't think they give a shit.

GEEZER

Friday, October 28, 2005 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- So, you never DID get into what you consider torture. By the way, I'm going to remind people that the pictures that we saw from Abu Ghraib were the LEAST offensive. The LEAST offensive. What happened in Abu Ghraib wasn't limited to dog collars and naked pyramids. Keep that in mind.

Please don't think they give a shit.

Let's put it this way, the stuff that's described in this memo, I DON'T consider torture. This is the stuff Rummy approved. If you have problems with any specific technique in the memo, I'd be glad to discuss that with you.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.12.02.pdf

As I've said over and over again, apparently to no purpose, the stuff at Abu Ghraib which caused people to be charged and convicted of prisoner mistreatment was quite obviously over the line and illegal.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, October 28, 2005 7:20 PM

Quote:
the stuff at Abu Ghraib which caused people to be charged and convicted of prisoner mistreatment was quite obviously over the line and illegal.

So- what you're saying is that what happened at Abu Ghraib WAS torture? And, are you saying it violated the Geneva Convention?

GEEZER

Friday, October 28, 2005 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
the stuff at Abu Ghraib which caused people to be charged and convicted of prisoner mistreatment was quite obviously over the line and illegal.

So- what you're saying is that what happened at Abu Ghraib WAS torture? And, are you saying it violated the Geneva Convention?

I'm saying it violated US military guidelines for the treatment of prisoners (note I'm not saying "prisoners of war"). That's what the charges were, as I recall. I don't have enough detail about specific incidents to determine if they were "torture". I'm not even sure which definition of torture should be used in this case. And no, I'm not going to get into a "well, is this particular thing torture in this particular circumstance" roundyround.

Again, I do not consider the techniques in the memo cited above to be torture. Anything beyond those approved techniques is illegal, whether someone calls it "torture" or not. If you have a problem with some of the approved techniques say so.

I will say that trying to read HOWARD's posts all the way through could be considered "severe mental anguish" by some. (Just joking here. Really)

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Friday, October 28, 2005 9:34 PM

To Finn, Geezer, and anyone I missed:
I have respect for you guys. I do, honestly, I don't agree with half of what your say, but you make your points and you believe what your saying.

So I have a hard time believing that, despite all the posturing going on here that you guys think that everything going on in all these camps is okay.

Seriously, say that it's justified or whatever. But okay, on a purely moral level?
Would you accept that it's okay to keep people in 'stress positions' or deprive them of sleep if they were Americans who had been accused of breaking a law?

I really honestly think you guys, in your heart of hearts think what's going on is a wrong as the rest of us do.

You want to justify it, for whatever reason, fine. But I still find it hard to believe that you guys think that what’s going on there, all things being equal, is 'ok'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Okay, the talking ferret was a bit wierd...

GEEZER

Friday, October 28, 2005 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
To Finn, Geezer, and anyone I missed:
I have respect for you guys. I do, honestly, I don't agree with half of what your say, but you make your points and you believe what your saying.

So I have a hard time believing that, despite all the posturing going on here that you guys think that everything going on in all these camps is okay.

And you apparently have a hard time actually reading my posts. I have said more times than I can count that the convictions for prisoner mistreatment at Abu G. and other places were absolutely correct. I've also noted that the behavior that led to those convictions was outside the scope of the treatment detailed in the DOJ memo I've quoted above at least a couple of times.

Please somebody read that memo, and let's discuss what Rummy actually approved as interrogation techniques. If you think they constitute torture, say so. Then we'll have something to discuss.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE