Yrkoon

^ That COULD be a rational argument, if it wasn't for 2 things. First, The OLC head's signature is on the response memo--making the response akin to a legally binding opinion on US policy--one that, as the article points out, the BA adopted. And second, what did the OLC memo say was allowable? THIS: And THIS: ^The PDF of this response-memo is linked in the Washington post article I posted. If you can get it to load I invite you to read it. It's pretty damning. Because of lots of reason: 1. Because of the legal grey area of: What is "severe". That word is used alot, but not defined. Close but no. Guess again? ^The Whitehouse had previously ruled (twice) that all Abu Ghraib Detainees are POWs. In fact, many of those tortured by Graner and his unit have since been released and the military has compensated them and their families. We don't compensate Terrorists, do we. So no, try a different defense, Mr. Advocate. Not saying your wrong, but curious: 1. Whose words are they? Rumsfeld's. He was warning Congress that they haven't seen anything yet. *Yawn* A *good* Devil's advocate would take 2 minutes and do a google search before challenging a FACT. Thousands: ^And this was last year, wasn't it. What have our Senators said (and done) since then, kumquatq3? And what did military officials say?

LOL no of course not. We've only got strikingly similar methods of sodomy, degradation and humiliation, water boarding, deaths via blunt objects to the head (ruled as homicides) occuring simultaniously at Abu Ghraib (Iraq) and 3 seperate prisons Afghanistan. And occuring over a period of 6-9 months. And this all happens within a year of documented corrispondence between Rumsfeld, the CIA and the Justice Department's legal council regarding the question of "what can we get away with?" What a coincidence. LOL you crack me up Shadowpaladin. OH BOY! For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirmed, which have not been released to the public due to their "INTERNATIONAL CRISIS" potential. (<---hint: these are not my words) That's right, THOUSANDS. Shadowpaladin, do you even have a clue as to what you're talking about? Very few government officials in the WORLD are still arguing, as you are, that this is just a "few bad apples". Our own government has gone *beyond* this argument and is now addressing the system itself. Explain to us why this is the case. I find the idea of a President who wishes to incite the masses so as to goad terrorists to come out of hiding and carry out attacks (so that we may capture them) to make lots of sense. Diabolical and reprehensable, but totally in line with the Neo-Con doctrine.

First off, since when does public outcry = proof that torture isn't a US government policy? Second, not a single member of the US military in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanaimo Bay has ever been arrested (or convicted) for torture. Charles Graner came the closest. And he was convicted of: 1)Assault, 2)conspiracy, 3)maltreatment of detainees, 4)committing indecent acts and 5)dereliction of duty. Wanna take a stab as to why there were no torture charges?

Not the same thing. When he says it he means as a matter of policy. What individuals do is not down to him, as long as they are punished for their actions via the legal system thats about all he can do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In fact, we have proof that the Bush administration condoned torture as a matter of policy a whole YEAR before we took control of Abu Ghraib from Saddam Hussein and started operating it ourselves. Or perhaps you've not heard of the torture memos of 2002?

Full text here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_...wh/bush_torture So if we don't torture, why do we need to exempt the CIA from a potential ban on torture? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ^Yep. LOL. But there's another element to this farce. Rumsfeld and Cheney actually defending the CIA's right to freedom. Since when? They have, since the very beginning, attempted to sideline the CIA. Cheney has gone so far as to create his own intelligence organization which happened to come in direct conflict with the CIA numerous times before our invasion of Iraq. What exactly is Cheney's motivation here?

As a self-proclaimed lawyer, YOUR call should be clear and obvious, ShadowPaladin. We should NEVER come close to torturing any detainee. Ever. Especially if we think he might be involved in a massive future terrorist plot--like another September 11th. I'm not sure what legal systems are in place where you're from, but here in the USA, our system has strict rules and regulations for the protection of suspects that must be followed at every level. This is for a reason. Its to ensure reliablity of a witness, accuracy of a testimony or statement, and most importantly, to ensure total transparancy of the whole process. The theory is that after the strict process is applied from the beginning to the end, only the most reliable and truthful information survives it. So... how exactly is beating a confession out of a suspect (in private) going to produce reliable information for us? How exactly will sleep deprivation, naked pyramids, sodomy via chemical light and water boarding, (all of which can and will take place in secret prisons void of any open and transparent legal process) going to yield us the vital, life or death information we need to prevent another September 11th? If we torture a suspect, how in the world will we know that the information he gave us was the truth, rather than BS that he decided to spout so as to end the torture being administered to him? Also, regarding Cheney's argument, that the CIA should be exempt from any torture laws...how exactly will that promote serious CIA investigations? I mean, what incentive does the CIA have to check, double check, verify and falsify raw information? I mean, Why bother, when they can "win" a case at the tribunal by pounding a "confession" out of a prisoner? No. The whole White House argument of "The CIA should be exempt from the rules" when our national security is at stake is probably the most asinine and dangerous argument this administration has ever made.