Mikey did it

dyslexia wrote:

toon time, and in cell number one we have.....

Still waiting on that link Dys.

0 Replies

prob with ABC news, I posted this yesterday and it's gone today. check with Foxfyre about needing verifiable facts/information. (not required)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Joe Republican wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I guess our definitions of torture differ.

<shrug>

What you consider torture, I consider discomfort. I couldn't imagine what you'd consider what I think torture is.

Usually agony is involved. Wearing a hood and standing around naked while really tired is hardly torture. Uncomfortable? yes. Humiliating? You bet. Torture? Not the least bit.

Learn about what torture really is.

Would you call rectally impairing with a baton torture? How about suffocation by compression? How about forced homosexual encounters?

Lets call a spade a spade and not try to sugar coat this stuff. . . OK

Where does anyone in a leadership capacity give the ok to "rectally impair, suffocate or force homosexuality"?

Let's try to keep on track.

PDiddie has stated that the President himself ok'ed some of the interogation techniques used. Do go start equating that with what you have just said, because that wouldn't quite be fair now would it?

I am talking about what memo stated, and what the repercussions were. The above were all actions started by allowing torture to begin with.

You want to justify torture by saying "We weren't as bad as Saddam", but the justification of torture (be mental OR physical) DIRECTLY leads to what happened at Abu Ghirab and Gitmo.

You get the whole ball of wax or nothing. There is NO middle ground, either you condone torture or not. There is not a differentiation between different forms of torture, because the allowance of one leads to the other. Hence, we get what happened at Abu Ghirab and numerous other locations.

Actually, that's probably where we differ. You do not see a cause and effect type situation. You don't think one form of torture leads to another form, but I do. You think what happened at Abu Ghirab would have happened whether we had allowed torture or not.

0 Replies

The candidate that Bush is putting forth to fill the attorney general's position was the individual who wrote the opinion that these people were not covered by the Geneva convention and could therefore be subjected to torture. If that torture is illegal than he rather than those scapegoats who are being prosecuted should be going to prison along with his boss tree fungus.

0 Replies

No one allowed torture to begin with. That's what I was trying to say earlier. What you consider torture and what the government considers torture are two different entities.

There is NO WAY, let me repeat that NO WAY our administration gave permission to anyone to use torture as an interogation technique.

The Government, as well as the UN have very strict guidlines defining torture and what we are using to interrogate prisoners/illegal comabatants is most definitely well with in the accepted boundaries.

What gets reported is when a few make poor decisions on their own and get caught.

0 Replies

Here's a link:

kotv source

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Pentagon is investigating new allegations by a civil liberties group that military interrogators at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay posed as FBI agents while using abusive techniques to question detainees.

The American Civil Liberties Union released e-mails that showed FBI officials disapproved of the practice and suggested the military interrogators posed as FBI agents in part to take advantage of the rapport the FBI had established with some detainees at the prison.

The e-mails, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, also describe some harsh interrogation techniques and a suggestion they were approved by President Bush _ a charge the White House vigorously denied.

and a link to another 454!goto

0 Replies

Not only that McG, Lt Calley acted as a renegade, independently and alone is responsible for My Lai.
pffffffffffffffffttttttt.

0 Replies

and My Lai is relevent how?

0 Replies

damn, it's a mystery to me (J FC how dense can one get)

0 Replies

Perhaps we should ask those who survived The Fort Delaware Death Pen what they think? It seems to have about the same relevance. (I ask the same thing myself.)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

There is NO WAY, let me repeat that NO WAY our administration gave permission to anyone to use torture as an interogation technique.

This is the sort of declarative statement that could really come back to bite you in the ass.

0 Replies

Roots of torture
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/

0 Replies

See?

0 Replies

In Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002), Pryor vigorously defended Alabama's practice of handcuffing prison inmates to hitching posts in the hot sun if they refused to work on chain gangs or otherwise disrupted them. In 1995, Alabama was the only state in the country that still used chain gangs and the only one that used the hitching post. 536 U.S. at 733. The post was a horizontal bar to which inmates were handcuffed "in a standing position and remain[ed] standing the entire time they [were] placed on the post."the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment, [which] is nothing less than the dignity of man.'"
source

NEVER SAY NEVER!

0 Replies

Mr Stillwater wrote:

In Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002), Pryor vigorously defended Alabama's practice of handcuffing prison inmates to hitching posts in the hot sun if they refused to work on chain gangs or otherwise disrupted them. In 1995, Alabama was the only state in the country that still used chain gangs and the only one that used the hitching post. 536 U.S. at 733. The post was a horizontal bar to which inmates were handcuffed "in a standing position and remain[ed] standing the entire time they [were] placed on the post."the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment, [which] is nothing less than the dignity of man.'"
source

NEVER SAY NEVER!

What doe this have to do with anything?

0 Replies

I had been assured by someone (above) that no public activity undertaken by ANY government agency of the USA would contravene a stated committment to not using 'abusive methods' on anyone.

However, the magnificent and highly respected State of Alabama seems to think that doesn't really matter. How many other agencies, State and Federal, might consider that... well... that sort of 'touchy-feely' stuff (like the 8th Amendment) isn't relevent to today. In fact how much of that 'Constitution' have you mob managed to jettison on the way to Baghdad? Seems to me that when Govt agencies start to play fast and loose with legal 'interpretation' they'll let folks get away with anything.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

There is NO WAY, let me repeat that NO WAY our administration gave permission to anyone to use torture as an interogation technique.

Well, then your definition and our own government's definition differ, because here's the memo.

torture memo

It appears that our administration D-I-D did (for fellow Pats fans) condone torture, and this memo outlines the guidelines to follow.

Now, have you changed your position any? Do you see the inherent problems when you start to condone torture?

0 Replies

The discussion shall now proceed to descend into a hair-splitting contest and argument over whose DEFINITION of "torture" shall apply.

Torture is like Pornography... it's difficult to define, but you know it when you see it...

0 Replies

It is only torture when you are the torturee not the torturer. Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

It's only torture when they do it in places like South Korea, Iran, or Cuba.... never by our 'allies'. We use 'coercive' methods, 'stressful' interrogation, psyops - just as the Nazis did, just as the Soviets did, just as the Chinese do today - all the time chanting the mantra, 'We're only doing this to make the world a better place'.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know