Time to put up or shut up; Upd: Coverup Continues

Do you think it can't be investigated and prosecuted without publishing pictures of it?

I never looked at the pictures of beheadings. I didn't look at pictures of the dead Hussein brothers, until they were on a thread here or somewhere. I wouldn't look at Daniel Pearl's murder--these things are inhumane, as is torture.

I don't understand people who want to see these things--but much moreso those who want this type of picure broadcast, when they know people will be killed as a result.

None of you have supported why it is appropriate. You have tried and failed to equate releasing the pictures with an investigation.

Why don't you tell the truth about why you want them released?

White House opposes ban on detainee mistreatment[/size]

By Josh White and R. Jeffrey Smith

Updated: 12:25 a.m. ET July 23, 2005
The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual. White House threatens defense bill veto
The White House, in a further indication of its strong feelings, bluntly warned in a statement sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday that President Bush's advisers would urge him to veto the $442 billion defense bill "if legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."Military investigations into the abuse in 2003 of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad disclosed that dozens were held without being registered at numerous prisons; the administration has said it needed to do so to conduct interrogations in isolation and to hide the identity of prisoners from other terrorists.

Can you explain how this equals "proof that the guys at the top see torture as neccessary"? Is your definition of torture so skewed that simply being detained now means torture?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And you think, torture etc could happen if not published?

Do you think it can't be investigated and prosecuted without publishing pictures of it?

I never looked at the pictures of beheadings. I didn't look at pictures of the dead Hussein brothers, until they were on a thread here or somewhere. I wouldn't look at Daniel Pearl's murder--these things are inhumane, as is torture.

I don't understand people who want to see these things--but much moreso those who want this type of picure broadcast, when they know people will be killed as a result.

None of you have supported why it is appropriate. You have tried and failed to equate releasing the pictures with an investigation.

Why don't you tell the truth about why you want them released?

Stop being so dramatic. This isn't about torture, which has been, and remains illegal, it's about the senate's attempt to bypass the executive branch to appease liberal voters. It should be vetoed, but by using line-item veto.

The administration does not condone torture, neither do I, neither do you.

Stop being so dramatic. This isn't about torture, which has been, and remains illegal, it's about the senate's attempt to bypass the executive branch to appease liberal voters. It should be vetoed, but by using line-item veto.

The administration does not condone torture, neither do I, neither do you.

Quote:

Stop being so dramatic. This isn't about torture, which has been, and remains illegal, it's about the senate's attempt to bypass the executive branch to appease liberal voters. It should be vetoed, but by using line-item veto.

The administration does not condone torture, neither do I, neither do you.

It isn't drama. It is the truth. You may say that Torture remains illegal but the fact remains that we do it. And those responsible have not been punished for it.

You think that McCain and other Republicans are trying to 'appease liberal voters?' You live in a fantasy world, McG. People actually have standards of conduct that they consider important. In this case many of these people consider the tortures and abuses we perpetrate to be morally wrong.

You DO support torture. You continually argue in favor of those who support doing it. You argue that torture and abuse aren't reason for oversight of our system. You argue that the 'terrorists' deserve it. So don't give me any of your bullsh*t.

Cycloptichorn

That's retarded.

By your logic you support terrorism and are failing to support our troops.

McGentrix wrote:

Stop being so dramatic. This isn't about torture, which has been, and remains illegal, it's about the senate's attempt to bypass the executive branch to appease liberal voters. It should be vetoed, but by using line-item veto.

The administration does not condone torture, neither do I, neither do you.

Bullsh!t. There are plenty of pictures showing how this administration has absolutely no PROBLEM with torture. Otherwise, where is the bottom line condemnation? I certainly haven't heard any.

Alberto Gonzales felt that the Geneva Convention could be messed with enough so that we could torture prisoners who MIGHT be potential informants. So, how is this NOT condoning torture?

We also send prisoners to countries which DO torture, and we do it knowingly, which further undermines your argument that the U.S. doesn't condone torture.

The threat was a veiled reference to legislation drafted by McCain and being circulated among at least 10 Republican senators, Senate aides said. No effort has been made by McCain to cultivate Democratic support, although his aides predict he could get it easily. John Ullyot, a Warner spokesman, said that the senator has been working with McCain and Graham on detainee legislation and that "the matter continues to be studied."

I have heard of no new events of so-called torture. You all continue to re-hash the same BS from months ago. The whiners and certain Democratic Senators still to this day criticize our troops in it entirety, as being the evil ones.

That's retarded.

By your logic you support terrorism and are failing to support our troops.

I don't see why people get their feathers ruffled by McG.
To me it's like arguing with my country-club father-in-law at the dinner table. A lot of insults are thrown...and they're all forgotten the next day

Dookiestix wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Stop being so dramatic. This isn't about torture, which has been, and remains illegal, it's about the senate's attempt to bypass the executive branch to appease liberal voters. It should be vetoed, but by using line-item veto.

The administration does not condone torture, neither do I, neither do you.

Bullsh!t. There are plenty of pictures showing how this administration has absolutely no PROBLEM with torture. Otherwise, where is the bottom line condemnation? I certainly haven't heard any.

Alberto Gonzales felt that the Geneva Convention could be messed with enough so that we could torture prisoners who MIGHT be potential informants. So, how is this NOT condoning torture?

We also send prisoners to countries which DO torture, and we do it knowingly, which further undermines your argument that the U.S. doesn't condone torture.

I have heard of no new events of so-called torture. You all continue to re-hash the same BS from months ago. The whiners and certain Democratic Senators still to this day criticize our troops in it entirety, as being the evil ones.

So now you have new pix of an old story. Seems that many of you really do not support the troops and hide behind 2 reported incidents as your way of showing your so called support for the troops.