Bush: "We Do Not Torture"

[Yrkoon]

:Devils advocate:

 

That would be the Justice deptartment telling Bush what interrigation acts are legal. Not Bush condoning anything.

 

To quote the Washington Post (not exactly Bushs best freind):

 

the 2002 and 2003 memos reflect the Bush administration's desire to explore the limits on how far it could legally go in aggressively interrogating foreigners suspected of terrorism or of having information that could thwart future attacks.

 

So, a letter asking essentially what is and what isn't legal isn't exactly a smoking gun, no matter how coldly and bluntly it was worded

^ 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:

A confidential Justice Department legal memo sent to the White House in August 2002 concluded that interrogation of detainees can involve "cruel, inhuman or degrading" acts without violating U.S. and international laws prohibiting torture.

And THIS:

due to the "current war against al-Qaida and its allies," a legal prohibition against detainee torture does not apply because it may be viewed as an unconstitutional infringement on the president's powers as commander-in-chief to conduct war.

^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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

2.The "terrorists" are not civilians, but not POWs by any Geneva definition and all sorts of various loopholes in the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

^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.

 

(<---hint: these are not my words) That's right, THOUSANDS.

 

Not saying your wrong, but curious:

 

1. Whose words are they?

Rumsfeld's. He was warning Congress that they haven't seen anything yet.

 

2. I know there was unreleased photos, but it was my understanding it was more soldier taken shots.

 

Hence, not THOUSANDS. Link please?

 

:End devils advocate:

 

that was fun

*Yawn* A *good* Devil's advocate would take 2 minutes and do a google search before challenging a FACT.

 

Thousands:

Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control. Individual soldiers who took the photos have been "trading" them, and some may be negotiating to sell the videos to foreign television outlets, the officials said, according to the Senate aide.

^And this was last year, wasn't it. What have our Senators said (and done) since then, kumquatq3?

 

And what did military officials say?

Edited November 14, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Laozi]

What exactly is Cheney's motivation here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Surely you have heard of his secret island stronghold where he trains his elite vampire brigade.

[Walsingham]

Yrkhoon, as a matter of etiquette could you not triple post? It is something I had to learn to do. If you must address several people, take notes or something. Again, it's what I now do. Welcome to the party, though.

 

While I accept that technically the signature of the OLC would make any memo official, the reality of government is that such a communication would be treated as advice. And as my friend the talking kumquat says, how can it be wrong for a President to ask for advice on an issue? Even a sensitive issue.

 

Secondly, while I would agree that a lack of public oversight would tend to encourage abuse, I would not agree that it _guarantees_ abuse. On the one hand you have the fact that experienced interrogators know damn well that torture gets them nowhere. In fact it makes their job harder. Remember that the subhumans at Abu Ghraib were torturing on their own time as guards, not interrogators. One the other hand oversight can be provided by the CO of the prison, and if well chosen this can be enough.

 

Finally, the absence of charges of torture to my mind merely reflects an unwillingness on the part of the Pentagon to hold US troops accountable for events occurring in service and abroad. It has happened in Japan, Afghanistan, and when bad things happen between NATO forces. I can only assume it is intended to avoid legal precedents being set. It is extremely unhelpful for all concerned at the sharp end, however, and is roundly condemned by every responsible officer (including Americans) that I've met.

 

The refusal to conduct proper investigations mentioned above is especially unhelpful in that it creates an image of indiscipline and arrogance. However while this may be true at the Pentagon, you should not make the mistake of assuming it goes all the way down.

[Yrkoon]

Yrkhoon, as a matter of etiquette could you not triple post?

How about we strike a deal, I will observe etiquette and not triple post, if you observe etiquette and not misspell my name.

 

 

While I accept that technically the signature of the OLC would make any memo official, the reality of government is that such a communication would be treated as advice. And as my friend the talking kumquat says, how can it be wrong for a President to ask for advice on an issue? Even a sensitive issue.

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?

 

 

Secondly, while I would agree that a lack of public oversight would tend to encourage abuse, I would not agree that it _guarantees_ abuse. On the one hand you have the fact that experienced interrogators know damn well that torture gets them nowhere. In fact it makes their job harder. Remember that the subhumans at Abu Ghraib were torturing on their own time as guards, not interrogators. One the other hand oversight can be provided by the CO of the prison, and if well chosen this can be enough.

Huh?

 

 

Finally, the absence of charges of torture to my mind merely reflects an unwillingness on the part of the Pentagon to hold US troops accountable for events occurring in service and abroad. It has happened in Japan, Afghanistan, and when bad things happen between NATO forces. I can only assume it is intended to avoid legal precedents being set. It is extremely unhelpful for all concerned at the sharp end, however, and is roundly condemned by every responsible officer (including Americans) that I've met.

Exactly.

 

The refusal to conduct proper investigations mentioned above is especially unhelpful in that it creates an image of indiscipline and arrogance. However while this may be true at the Pentagon, you should not make the mistake of assuming it goes all the way down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Yrkoon

[kumquatq3]

^ 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?

 

You misunderstand

 

" In this case, the memorandum was signed by Jay S. Bybee, the head of the office at the time. Bybee's signature gives the document additional authority, making it akin to a binding legal opinion on government policy on interrogations."

 

That does NOT make US policy.

 

It does confirm the legal issues the document address are, in fact, correct.

 

The Post twisted the wording a bit to make their case. By have the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge sign off on the document it basically mean it has been reviewed and upheld the legality of the document. Making it, essentially, precedent. Which is influencial, but without it coming from a higher court, isn't exactly binding.

 

^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.

 

I had it on my computer quite awhile ago and have read it. Is it ugly? Yes. Does it legally condone torture? Nope.

 

^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.

 

The Whitehouse ruled???

 

I assure you thats not the case

 

Try again

 

Rumsfeld's. He was warning Congress that they haven't seen anything yet.

 

I meant, Link Please

 

*Yawn* A *good* Devil's advocate would take 2 minutes and do a google search before challenging a FACT.

 

Thousands:

 

Or maybe someone should use sources to back up his arguement

 

but your link DOES NOT support your arguement. You again twisted it.

 

It says:

 

"Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control. Individual soldiers who took the photos... "

 

You said:

 

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.

 

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.

[Yrkoon]

You misunderstand

 

" In this case, the memorandum was signed by Jay S. Bybee, the head of the office at the time. Bybee's signature gives the document additional authority, making it akin to a binding legal opinion on government policy on interrogations."

 

That does NOT make US policy.

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?

 

It does confirm the legal issues the document address are, in fact, correct.

What legal issues? And what do you mean by "correct"?

 

  The Post twisted the wording a bit to make their case. By have the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge sign off on the document it basically mean it has been reviewed and upheld the legality of the document. Making it, essentially, precedent. Which is influencial, but without it coming from a higher court, isn't exactly binding.

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.

 

I had it on my computer quite awhile ago and have read it. Is it ugly? Yes. Does it legally condone torture? Nope.

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.

 

 

The Whitehouse ruled???

 

I assure you thats not the case

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 meant, Link Please

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.

 

 

 

but your link DOES NOT support your arguement. You again twisted it.

 

It says:

 

"Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control. Individual soldiers who took the photos... "

 

You said:

 

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.

 

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.

[Yrkoon]

I don't think Abu Gahib was about getting information...it was more of a sadistic psychological warfare.

 

The "black sites" are, supposedly, CIA, which means they are primarily there to get information.  I doubt there is actual "torture" going on.....sleep deprivation, drugs, positive rewards for cooperating (hot babe rubbing you down with oil) would, I think, get you more and better information than torture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

[kumquatq3]

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?

 

You said

 

"In fact, we have proof that the Bush administration condoned torture as a matter of policy.....Or perhaps you've not heard of the torture memos of 2002?"

 

I simplely showed that what you said IS factly incorrect.

 

Those memos essentially asnwered a question of "what is (illegal) and what isn't (legal) considered torture".

 

You said they condoned torture when that clearly isn't the case.

 

Do I consider the documents horrible? Yes. Are they direct evidence for your claim? No.

 

The documents only told the administration what is and what isn't legal.

 

Understand?

 

What legal issues? And what do you mean by "correct"?

 

Thats why they had a Federal Appelete judge look at them, to make sure their legally 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.

 

You mean the CIA. There is little evidence that the Pentagon knowingly condoned these methods outlined in the memo.

 

As for my personal opnion, I'm with John McCain. But thats not why I posted. I posted because your claims, while they could be true, were supported by false evidence.

 

And that doesn't help my/our view point. I think there is more than enough real facts to prove my points on this issue.

 

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.

 

1. Nope, not unless it is "SEVERE". Thats the big grey area McCains bill is supposed to clear up.

 

2. Me and Bush do not share any moral opinion on the matter. We possibly might share an opinion on what the LAW says on the issue.

 

Are you claiming that the Whitehouse (specifically the President) hasn't TWICE stated officially that all detainees at Abu Ghraib are POWs by status?

 

To my knowledge, that is exactly what I'm claiming. That have been pretty clear about the terrorists NOT having POW status.

 

The Iraq Army regulars is another story.

 

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.

 

You have not. Name calling won't hide your lack of evidence.

 

You didn't read the second link, did you

 

In fact, You have not.

 

Or you have failed to understand it.

 

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

 

Swarmed? Crushed?

 

You have provided one link that disproves your comments.

 

You said the congress saw "THOUSANDS" of photos and are surpressing them

 

While, if you search the article (I encourage EVERYONE to search it to verify what I'm saying), only meantions "THousands" in reference to the pictures once, which is:

 

"Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control."

 

"Outside of 'their' control" and "may exist" doesn't match your claim of:

 

"For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirme"

 

You seem well educated and resourceful enough, why you have to make up claims is beyond me. Trust me, there is no need. While there is no smoking gun, plenty of evidence is already there.

Edited November 14, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Yrkoon]

The documents only told the administration what is and what isn't legal.

 

Understand?

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.

 

You said

 

"In fact, we have proof that the Bush administration condoned torture as a matter of policy.....Or perhaps you've not heard of the torture memos of 2002?"

 

I simplely showed that what you said IS factly incorrect.

 

Those memos essentially asnwered a question of "what is (illegal) and what isn't (legal) considered torture".

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?

You said they condoned torture when that clearly isn't the case.

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?

Do I consider the documents horrible? Yes. Are they direct evidence for your claim? No.

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

Thats why they had a Federal Appelete judge look at them, to make sure their legally correct.

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!

You mean the CIA. There is little evidence that the Pentagon knowingly condoned these methods outlined in the memo.

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??

[Yrkoon]

As for my personal opnion, I'm with John McCain. But thats not why I posted. I posted because your claims, while they could be true, were supported by false evidence.  And that doesn't help my/our view point. I think there is more than enough real facts to prove my points on this issue.

^ 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.

1. Nope, not unless it is "SEVERE". Thats the big grey area McCains bill is supposed to clear up.

*What* are you talking about? Where are you getting this "severe" BS?

 

To my knowledge, that is exactly what I'm claiming. That have been pretty clear about the terrorists NOT having POW status.

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?

The Iraq Army regulars is another story.

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.

  You have not. Name calling won't hide your lack of evidence.

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...

In fact, You have not.

 

Or you have failed to understand it.

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.

[tarna]

While this looks like quite an entertaining rumble in the making (w00t) , I gotta ask that you guys lighten up a bit.

[kumquatq3]

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.

 

 

2nd page of the memo:

 

"As we have explained, in order to inflict severe (there is that word again) mental or suffereing, a defendent must inflict one of the four predicate acts, such as threating imminet death, and intending "prolonged mental harm""

 

Right before that it lists the 4 conditions for "Severe mental pain or suffering"

 

Which takes up 1/2 of the roughly 1 and a half pages dedicated to "what is torture" (or "I").

 

Again, YOU ARE INCORRECT.

 

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.

 

Legally? Maybe, it depends, but your definition is not the legal definition of anything that the US is bound too.

 

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?

 

Because it prolly uses extreme methods that is in the legal grey area!

 

But thats not what you argued. You argued that the document was essentially a smokign gun and proves Bush condoned torture a before AG. Which, of course, it doesn't. Legally.

 

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?

 

Your confusing morality and legality

 

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!

 

Actually, that is my mistake. She was not a appleate judge yet, but a lawyer who check it for legal "correctness". She apparently was good enough to become a federal appelate judge later tho.

Edited November 15, 2005 by kumquatq3

[kumquatq3]

^ 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.

 

He used the memos as an example of how not having clear rules hurts our image.

 

Not as a smoking gun that the US uses torture

 

So no, nothing like you argument

 

Please, again, understand what your saying before you sling names.

 

Around here, name calling is a good sign your on the ropes.

 

*What* are you talking about? Where are you getting this "severe" BS?

 

Signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture agree not to intentionally inflict "severe pain or suffering".

 

Also a common wording from the 3rd and 4th Geneva conventions.

 

I'd expect you would know the legal definition of torture by the three big treaties banning it when making an argument about Bush illegally using torture.

 

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?

 

I am claiming that TERRORISTS held by the administration don't have POW status. According to the administration, which is currently being upheld by the courts.

 

They are called enemy combatants

 

The administration says this about Abu Ghraib "Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States recognizes that these treaties are binding in the war for the liberation of Iraq.". Hence they give them POW treatment.

 

But Iraq wasn't part of either Geneva convention. So, legally, they can't have POWs. Hence you can't convict under such laws or, at least, it would be hell to prove.

 

Hence why those charges were not brought. Your original point.

 

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.

 

It's already happened.

 

References in the BBC story, with a caption and picture that says it all

 

Again, you are working with incorrect info

 

I mean, didn't you even google or something to check your info?

 

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.

 

1. You used that information incorrectly as I have pointed out and you have skipped over.

 

2. There are MANY people who don't find the Washington Post as the most fair of newspapers.

 

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...

 

Liberal Atheist

 

But I'll thank you NOT to paint all Christians with one brush. You'll find your time on these forums will be short lived if you spout bigotry

 

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.

 

2nd times the charm right?:

 

You have provided one link that disproves your comments.

 

You said the congress saw "THOUSANDS" of photos and are surpressing them

 

While, if you search the article (I encourage EVERYONE to search it to verify what I'm saying), only meantions "THousands" in reference to the pictures once, which is:

 

"Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control."

 

"Outside of 'their' control" and "may exist" doesn't match your claim of:

 

"For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirme"

 

You seem well educated and resourceful enough, why you have to make up claims is beyond me. Trust me, there is no need. While there is no smoking gun, plenty of evidence is already there.

[kumquatq3]

PLEASE STOP AVODING OUR ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT:

 

You said the congress saw "THOUSANDS" of photos and are surpressing them

 

While, if you search the article (I encourage EVERYONE to search it to verify what I'm saying), only meantions "THousands" in reference to the pictures once, which is:

 

"Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control."

 

"Outside of 'their' control" and "may exist" doesn't match your claim of:

 

"For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirme"

 

again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim?

[Yrkoon]

2nd page of the memo:

 

"As we have explained, in order to inflict severe (there is that word again) mental or suffereing, a defendent must inflict one of the four predicate acts, such as threating imminet death, and intending "prolonged mental harm""

 

Right before that it lists the 4 conditions for "Severe mental pain or suffering"

 

Which takes up 1/2 of the roughly 1 and a half pages dedicated to "what is torture" (or "I").

 

Again, YOU ARE INCORRECT.

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.

 

Legally? Maybe, it depends, but your definition is not the legal definition of anything that the US is bound too.

<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.)

 

  Because it prolly uses extreme methods that is in the legal grey area!

 

But thats not what you argued. You argued that the document was essentially a smokign gun and proves Bush condoned torture a before AG. Which, of course, it doesn't. Legally.

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.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Yrkoon

[kumquatq3]

PLEASE STOP AVODING OUR ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT:

 

You said the congress saw "THOUSANDS" of photos and are surpressing them

 

While, if you search the article (I encourage EVERYONE to search it to verify what I'm saying), only meantions "THousands" in reference to the pictures once, which is:

 

"Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control."

 

"Outside of 'their' control" and "may exist" doesn't match your claim of:

 

"For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirme"

 

again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited November 15, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Judge Hades]

Does the federal government sanction torture? Yep. CIA has been doing that for years. If you think otherwise then you are one naive little bugger. Why is it such a big deal now? Bushie is trying to make the US look like the good guys but nasty things tend to pop up and everyone loves to make the good guy look evil.

 

Yeah, we are suppose to be the white hats but in truth we are no different than Saddam, Hitler, or Stalin. The only difference is that we can hide our dirty laundry better. At least we did till the cowboy got in office and lose focus on Al Qaeda.

[kumquatq3]

Does the federal government sanction torture?  Yep.  CIA has been doing that for years.  If you think otherwise then you are one naive little bugger. 

 

I think they torture. I think they "knowingly" have a policy of torture.

 

This arguement was about two (and a half) things:

 

1. Is the memo a "smoking gun" that flat out proves it

 

2. Were congressmen shown "THOUSANDS" of pictures of detainee abuses that have been supressed.

 

and kinda: 3. Is what happened at Abu torture and inforceable as such, legally speaking.

Edited November 15, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Yrkoon]

Your confusing morality and legality

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?

 

Actually, that is my mistake. She was not a appleate judge yet, but a lawyer who check it for legal "correctness". She apparently was good enough to become a federal appelate judge later tho.

*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.

 

He used the memos as an example of how not having clear rules hurts our image.  Not as a smoking gun that the US uses torture.  So no, nothing like you argument

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.

 

Please, again, understand what your saying before you sling names.  Around here, name calling is a good sign your on the ropes.

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.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Yrkoon]

I am claiming that TERRORISTS held by the administration don't have POW status. According to the administration, which is currently being upheld by the courts.  They are called enemy combatants

 

The administration says this about Abu Ghraib "Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States recognizes that these treaties are binding in the war for the liberation of Iraq.". Hence they give them POW treatment.

Are ALL detainees in Abu Ghraib POWs?

 

But Iraq wasn't part of either Geneva convention. So, legally, they can't have POWs. Hence you can't convict under such laws or, at least, it would be hell to prove.

You're Wrong. Both Iraq, and Afghanistan are high contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions. Check your facts.

 

It's already happened.

References in the BBC story, with a caption and picture that says it all  Again, you are working with incorrect info.  I mean, didn't you even google or something to check your info?

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?

Edited November 15, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Judge Hades]

I don't give a crap about legality. Torture is wrong, period. If it is legal then the law is wrong.

[Hildegard]

Yeah, we are suppose to be the white hats but in truth we are no different than Saddam, Hitler, or Stalin.  The only difference is that we can hide our dirty laundry better.  At least we did till the cowboy got in office and lose focus on Al Qaeda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's bullsh*t Hades....sure you're not all goody goody, but you've done many good things, but unfortunatly many bad things aswell, nonetheless you're better then those butchers you mentioned. A big problem with your current goverment is that they thought if they had power, thay had wisdom....but that's far far away from the actual truth.

[Judge Hades]

History is written by the victors, Hildegard. Obviously you never heard of the Trail of Tears. It made Hitler's death camps look like Fort Lauderdale. You probably never heard of Chief Joseph either, have you?

Edited November 15, 2005 by Hades_One

[kumquatq3]

You're Wrong. Both Iraq, and Afghanistan are high contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions. Check your facts.It's already happened

 

ooo, I guess you didn't know that if you don't meet your Geneva convention conditions, you essential break the treaty

 

Since Iraq did not apply the protections of the Geneva Conventions to American POW's throughout Gulf War I (e.g. abuse of 17 American POW's at the now-infamous Abu Ghraib, by the Iraq Intelligence Service) and Gulf War II (e.g. the well-known story of Jessica Lynch's unit), it may be argued that Iraq lost its protections under these particular documents

 

 

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?

 

Only a fool would assume I was talking about freindly troops

[Judge Hades]

There is no evidence showing the prisoners that the US tortured were part of the Iraqi Intelligence Service so that argument is null and void. Besides the government that sanctioned the torture of those US prisoners was deposed by us.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Hades_One