Yrkoon

Fine. What did Mary look like, then?

Ooh ooh, can I play? I call you CRY BABY I mean, WHINY ONLINE CRY BABY

I've taken everything I wanted from him already DENIED! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What, you're the one on the left? By the way, If the Bush administration doesn't condone torture then why are they fighting tooth and nail to give the CIA the right to use it? C'mon mr. Legalese, hit us up with those logical, blood causing teeth you claim to have and give us the answer to that question.

^a defeated loser who makes false claims about the Geneva convention, is not aware that Jessica Lynch denies her own mistreatment, Thinks that Jay Bybee is a girl, refuses to answer the question: are detainees at Abu Ghraib POWS?" etc.

Right, but you also EDITED your post a few minutes after that. And no one was claiming that it did. Now prove your ****ing claim

It isn't???? It IS what you posted previously: So explain to me: Are you lying now or were you lying before? I've always wanted my own bitch <{POST_SNAPBACK}> excuse me, but I edited my post before you posted this. You are once again dishonestly dodging.

Yes it does!!!! "intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" That clearly means severe is applied to ALL three! Prove it.

It's something they routinely do to their own troops too. Locking someone up can be defined as torture if you so choose. Under those broad definitions it's a pointless debate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's also HARDLY the scope of what we've been caught red-handed doing to detainees. So why bring it up, unless you're attempting to build a straw man?

Is it "severe" tho? It might be, but have fun proving it in legal terms hence why the charges were not brought, again <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ^Doesn't have to be severe. It merely has to cause non incidental suffering Hence the word *OR* after the word pain. remember, kumquatq3, READING COMPREHENSION. By the way, parading people around naked is hardly the scope of what we've been caught red-handed doing, so why bring it up, unless you're trying to build a straw man?

Well first off, our congress is in the process of establishing (or should I say RE-establishing) a definition of torture and also barring ANY use of it regardless of circumstance. Unfortunately, there's a president who's promising to veto it and a vice president who, just last week, went to congress and tried to argue AGAINST banning torture as an option for our CIA What's that tell you? Second, Parading people around naked, is degrading, and some would say inhuman and abusive, which is part of the US definition of torture. It's also HARDLY the scope of what we've been caught red-handed doing to detainees. So why bring it up, uless you're attempting to build a straw man?

To prove you wrong, I like taking out your initial arguements, and working my way down to your smaller ones. And it matters, because you claimed something, you mocked me when I asked for a source, and then the source you provided disproved your own claim. So it's funny and important <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The source I provided did not dispute my claim (which, by the way, was a rebuttal to Shadowpaladin's attempt to cast doubt on the validity of some of the released torture photos...and nothing more) Scroll back and learn the concept of timelines and reply quotes. Thanks. Ps. Did you or did you NOT dispute the THOUSANDS claim? And did I or did I NOT link you to an artile which has Rumsfeld specifically putting the number of unreased photos in the THOUSANDS?

I already said I made a mistake on that point unlike you, I can admit them. But I'll start you off small: Is "Severe" in the legal definition of torture or is that still BS? then work your way to: again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I already addressed this. Scroll up. (yes, I'm commenting on your blindness.)

No, they could just lie: again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just a question. What difference, exactly does it make whether or not Thousands of unreleased torture photos (cited by rumsfeld on the senate floor, btw) were actually in the Defense department's hands? Hmm? Why in the WORLD, are you ignoring the MASSIVE multi point rebuttals to your every argument and just clinging to this ABSOLTELY irrelevant...thing? Hmm?

All my posts are accurately utilizing the quote feature. In the rare instances where I have hit the submit button before double checking to make sure they were, I have edited them and fixed the problem within 2 or 3 minutes time. Stop whining. By the way, Jay Bybee is a HE..isn't he.

Thats something they wanted to do. Put someone in a cell and just kill them one night in their sleep. It was deemed as cruel and unusual punishment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hell, why wait until nighttime and kill them in their sleep? why not just Interrogate them to death in 90 minutes Fantastic way to get vital information to prevent the next massive terrorist attack, don't you think?

ooo, I guess you didn't know that if you don't meet your Geneva convention conditions, you essential break the treaty Oh what a friggin DODGE! a page ago you claimed this: Contrary to your absurd claim, They are in fact, a high contracting party to the Geneva convention. Oh and to address your dodge specifically, It doesn't matter in the slightest if 1 contracting party in a conflict fails to follow the conventions...the other contracting party is still required to abide by it. Thus, if saddam hwas having his troops attack from civilian areas, we are STILL required to treat captured Iraqis as POWS. CHECK. YOUR FACTS. Did you know... that EVEN if one of the Powers in a conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it? I bet you didn't, but I bet a a simple google search will enlighten you and prevent you from talking about stuff you know NOTHING about. Incidently, as I'm sure everyone ELSE is aware, the alleged Jessica Lynch "mistreatment" story has already been debunked several times over. Including once by Jessica Herself ...reports indicated that she had been raped. She said she had no recollection of the attack. "Even just the thinking about that, that's too painful," she told interviewer Diane Sawyer. Initial reports suggested that Miss Lynch had been abused after she came round in the hospital. She says that again was untrue - there was no mistreatment, and one nurse used to sing to her. Really, kumquatq3....

I refuse to address the ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT NON-POINT about whether or not our congress or the defense department has seen the THOUSANDS of torture photos that our army has. I promise that I WILL address this ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT NON-POINT as soon as you ANSWER the 4 ON TOPIC questions I have been posing to you and you have been refusing to answer for the last 2 pages. Get to them.

Are ALL detainees in Abu Ghraib POWs? You're Wrong. Both Iraq, and Afghanistan are high contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions. Check your facts. Oh Sure, because OF COURSE you were talking about SADDAMS army, rather than the current Iraqi military forces. Again, who are you trying to kid, kumquatq3?

Not at all. Neither one of us us putting up a morality argument. Instead, the argument here seems to be pitting Logic against Legality. I'm arguing the former while you're attempting (and failing) to argue the latter. So I'll ask the question one more time. Answer it this time. If the Bush administration doesn't condone torture then why are they fighting tooth and nail to give the CIA the right to use it? *shakes head* Jay Bybee is a *HE*. And getting voted to the 9th circuit court of Appeals is a political thing. It has more to do with convincing the Senate that you'd work in their best interest. So yea, kindly put a lid on the hyperbole. You're Wrong. And this will be the LAST TIME I ask you to STOP making up BS. As a DIRECT response to both the OLC memo AND the Bush administration's stated belief that torture can be used against illegal combatants, Senator John McCain wrote 2 specifically worded sentences into the last Defense Spending bill. They are as follows: 1) The limit of all Department of Defense (DoD) interrogations to using techniques listed in the Army Field Manual. 2) The prohibition of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" against "any individual in the custody or under the physical control of the [u.S.] government" (this includes the CIA.) #1 is self explanitory, since the Army Field Manual does not make any distinction between POWs and illegal combatants. #2 not only *voids* the OLC's contention (and the Bush Administration's policy) that torture is allowable against some individuals, but it also lowers the bar that the OLC raised regarding what is considered torture. Thus, current practices advocated as legal in the OLC memo and subsequently adopted by the Bush administration against Camp X-ray detainees, would now CLEARLY be prohibited. Notice the omission of the word 'severely'. Notice the addition of the phrase "ANY INDIVIDUAL". Now, you can take all this in and still continue to say that McCain wrote those two sentences to simply clear up any ambiguity in the law, but that's not a logical stance to have, since those two sentences DIRECTLY prohibit many of the things the OLC and the Bush Administration consider legal. I understand your need to accuse your opponent of name-calling when he's in fact, done so such thing, but really, must we be subjected to your dishonest and desperate debate style? I assure you that the beatings you're taking will end sometime this weekend, when my old message board comes back up. Until then, stop whining.

Oh for god sakes! <sigh> First off, that passage does not appear anywhere on page 2 of the memo. (who are you trying to kid?) Second, we'll take this nice and slow. The memo, on page 2, states the OFFICIAL legal definition of torture as it appears in sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of the US code. (rather than the grotesque excuse of an interpretation that the OLC gives) And the definition is: (An) Act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) within his custody or physical control My challenge to you (which you dishonestly dodged) was exactly this: please post the portion(s) of the memos that state what ISN'T legal. You did no such thing. Instead, you decided to cite us a portion of the memo where the OLC is enterpretting sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of the US code. And that's all! That's not ANYONE'S idea of "stating something that is illegal". Is it. Especially since the following (and previous) pages of that memo are FILLED with the OLC basically saying things like 1) "Eh, don't worry. 2340-2340A of title 18 of the US code may be unconstitutional since we're in a war and such laws infringe on a president's war time powers." and 2) "don't you worry if you get caught doing something 'severe'... we're certain the courts will take the totallity of the circumstances approach, hehehe." In other words, they are basically redefining torture and raising the bar just high enough so as to make it legal, while at the same time, assuring the reader that it will be impossible for the courts to rule against them under this new definition. In other words they're not saying anything is illegal. <sigh> I'll say it again. Changing the nomenclature (saying that something isn't torture when it really is) (what the memos did) does not change the fact that the BA condoned cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees...which is torture. My definition is actually STRICTER than the official definition of torture contained in sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of the US code...which simply requires that the detainees SUFFER. Not even severely...just to the point where the suffering isn't the usual, incidental suffering caused by legal acts. We can also delve into the practice of waterboarding, as it is an act that implies a threat of death (drowning) for the victim. And even the OLC's insane interpretation of the law would call that torture. (even as it assures the CIA that they'll be able to get away with such a thing.) Well, I agree that it's a "legal grey area". Anyone can make ANYTHING a legal grey area. All they have to do is play devil's advocate. But, uh, the memos sure as hell ARE smoking gun proof that the BA condones torture. The memo takes the original definition of torture and changes it so as to make traditional torture legal. For example, NOWHERE in sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of the US code (the official definition of torture), does it define severe mental pain as something that has to last YEARS. The OLC's definition does, though. In other words, the OLC literally pulled that one out of their asses without citing ANY precident. Now, If you want to argue that the Bush administration does not condone the new defintion of torture, then you go right ahead. But I'll just sit here and laugh at the ABURDITY. Also, if you choose to do such a thing, then don't you *dare* turn around and attempt to argue that you are in agreement with John McCain, since he's vowed to put a ban on what the BA and the OLC think is legal with regards to detainee treatment.

^ You're lying here. John McCain Has repeatedly cited the torture memos to make his case in the Senate. In a nutshell he basically employed the same argument I have. Thus by claiming that you agree with him while at the same time claiming that the evidence I'm presenting is false, you're basically saying that you disagree with John McCain's argument. You're contradicting yourself. In other words, you're lying. *What* are you talking about? Where are you getting this "severe" BS? I'll ask again. Are you claiming that the Whitehouse (specifically the President) hasn't TWICE stated officially that all detainees at Abu Ghraib are POWs by status? There will never come a time when Iraqi army regulars become our POWs or detainees...since they're on OUR side and we don't capture those on our side. So your statement here is both irrelevant and silly. Well, since you're on record disputing my Washington post links and accusing them of "twisting", I'll take your statement here as blind denial of the facts. Just out of curiosity, are you a religious Christian? The bulk of your argument style here seems to involve 1) denial in the face of overwhelming PLAIN fact 2) Attacking the source for no valid reason 3) blissfull ignorance of policy. This comes really close to the personality trait of the religious right. I'm just saying... Oh? By all means, what part of the second link am I getting wrong or not understanding? Go ahead, post the passages you think dispute my argument.

OH REALLY?? please post the portion(s) of the memos that state what ISN'T legal. I'm fairly certain you don't know what you're talking about. I'm positive you've never even taken a brief glance at any of these memos and as a result you've gone overboard in attempting to defend them. Your claim here is that these memos tell the administration what's legal and what isn't. I saw the parts that tell what's legal. However, the main controversy surrounding these memos IS their unbelievably broadness. They simply do NOT state what is prohibited. The effect of that is that they literally legalize torture. So go ahead, back your claim that they tell the Administration what is ILLEGAL. Thank you and good luck. Incorrect. Changing the nomenclature (saying that something isn't torture when it really is) (what the memos did) does not change the fact that the BA condoned cruel and unusual treatment of detainees...which is torture. And then had it employed it in numerous prison camps abroad. I'm sick of your hair splitting. If the Bush administration doesn't condone torture then why are they fighting tooth and nail to give the CIA the right to use it? It clearly IS the case and you are reduced to fighting desperately, clinging to the most insignificant technicallities in order to scrounge a blind defense. It's pretty simple and I'll ask again: If the Bush administration doesn't condone torture then why are they fighting tooth and nail to give the CIA the right to use it? While you'll get no argument from me that the documents are grotesquely alarming and that they constitute proof that the BA was attempting to get legal approval to use torture, I'll have to point out to you that you are fantastically incorrect in saying that they don't approve of and legalize torture. Clearly they do. Even the Washington Post agrees. So does the Republican controlled congress, btw. But perhaps you're not ready for that aspect of the debate Link? I'm unaware that an Federal Appelete court judge has ever made a ruling on the legal opinions contained in these memos and I'm pretty certain you are making this up. IN fact Jay Bybee was not an Appelete Court judge when he signed the torture memos, giving the BA legal permission to use torture, so yeah, it's time for you to put up or shut up. I want proof via a link that a Federal Appelete court judge has ruled on this matter. Thank you and good luck! Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. From the Washington post link that I posted a page ago: Another memorandum, dated March 6, 2003, from a Defense Department working group convened by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to come up with new interrogation guidelines for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, incorporated much, but not all, of the legal thinking from the OLC memo. ^The Pentagon is a Branch of the Defense department, isn't it, kiddo. Wait... Is it your contention that the Pentagon doesn't condone these methods, even though they ENCORPORATED them as GUIDELINES for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba??

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051113/pl_af...cksintelligence

It does if the defense department (rumsfelds office) takes this advice and applies it. Which is what happened according to the article. Or did you not get to that part? What legal issues? And what do you mean by "correct"? WTF! Does this matter? The Pentagon took the advice and applied it on the field. Today, the Vice President of the US is on his hands and knees begging congress not to change the rules. Stop your asinine "devil's advocacy" schtick and *THINK*, kumquatq3. Cruel and inhuman acts against detainees is torture. The US Senate has, twice, voted on the issue. And twice they have said so. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you and Bush share a vastly unpopular opinion. Deal with it. Are you claiming that the Whitehouse (specifically the President) hasn't TWICE stated officially that all detainees at Abu Ghraib are POWs by status? I gave two links that back my statements, and I might add, disprove yours. Didn't I. You are being disgustingly dishonest in an attempt to save face here. Aren't you. So Senators saw photos that the pentagon doesn't even know really exists???? I'd appreciate if you don't make up info, hence why I have to ask for links What really is the case is this: Those "thousands" are multiply copies of a few pictures, that may or may not exist in the first place. Which is unlikely, as some of them would have been leaked by now. The Congress saw only few unreleased photos that were purposely surpressed. That much is true. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You didn't read the second link, did you :D I understand your desperation. I'd be desperate too if I was being swarmed and my stance crushed. But there's no reason to be blind. There were thousands of photos that even RUMSFELD and Congress make reference to which have not seen the light of day. thus ShadowPaladin's notion that one (1) photo proven as a fake by a british newspaper amounts to quite an irrelevancy. Isn't it.

How about we strike a deal, I will observe etiquette and not triple post, if you observe etiquette and not misspell my name. Ok, I'm getting tired of people misreading simple text and then missing the point entirely on top of everything. From the Washington Post article which you folks have seen fit to cling to and comment about: Another memorandum, dated March 6, 2003, from a Defense Department working group convened by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to come up with new interrogation guidelines for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, incorporated much, but not all, of the legal thinking from the OLC memo. Lets see.... CIA requests legal advice on how far they can go in interrogations: Check OLC, who's advice is a legally binding opinion on US policy, says you can use cruel and inhuman treatment *and* rules against torture don't apply to some detainees: Check Rumsfeld later adopts much of OIC's legal opinion at Guantanaimo Bay, Cuba: Check. A year later we've got torture occuring at Guantanaimo Bay, Cuba: Check. A year after that Bush attempts to say it's not the USA's policy to Torture detainess: Check. What's 2 + 2, Walsingham? Huh? Exactly. I have no clue as to what you're trying to say here or what exactly you're referring to. I don't recall anyone on this thread claiming that the lowest members of the chain didn't get properly investigated and justly convicted.