PDA

View Full Version : Obama Ghraib!



LWW
03-21-2011, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Commanders in Afghanistan are bracing themselves for possible riots and public fury triggered by the publication of "trophy" photographs of US soldiers posing with the dead bodies of defenceless Afghan civilians they killed.

Senior officials at Nato's International Security Assistance Force in Kabul have compared the pictures published by the German news weekly Der Spiegel to the images of US soldiers abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib in Iraq which sparked waves of anti-US protests around the world.

They fear that the pictures could be even more damaging as they show the aftermath of the deliberate murders of Afghan civilians by a rogue US Stryker tank unit that operated in the southern province of Kandahar last year. </div></div>

OH MY! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/us-army-kill-team-afghanistan-posed-pictures-murdered-civilians)

LWW
03-21-2011, 11:37 AM
Will the commander in chief accept responsibility?

LWW
03-21-2011, 11:38 AM
Will the sec def be forced to resign?

LWW
03-21-2011, 11:38 AM
Will our resident leftists act as they did over Abu Ghraib?

pooltchr
03-21-2011, 11:45 AM
NO
Maybe
Not a chance!


Steve

Qtec
03-21-2011, 10:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Will the commander in chief accept responsibility? </div></div>

For what?


Q

LWW
03-22-2011, 02:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NO
Maybe
Not a chance!


Steve </div></div>

Number three has been verified so far.

Soflasnapper
03-22-2011, 04:22 PM
These newly reported incidents can be compared to those at Abu Ghraib, in that US armed service personnel behaved abominably, to the disgrace of their uniform and their country, and deserve whatever punishment is meted upon due process of (military) law.

They are different, and therefore not exactly comparable, in that this situation is clearly not anything ordered from the chain of command, whereas what went on at Abu Ghraib provably went up the chain and was ordered by that chain of command, up to and including the president.

Gen. "Dirty" Sanchez was sent to Iraq to Gitmoize the treatment of Iraqis imprisoned using the methods he used at Gitmo, and that he did. Unless one thinks that these lowest level personnel personally brought dog leashes and came up with sexually humiliating the prisoners.

Whether O accepts responsibility or not will be both a political and strategic decision. He may well do that, or he may not, hard to say. The 'few bad apples' defense is actually true in this case, and so far as I remember, that's the position that W took. US personnel have been involved in alleged murders and rapes, but that is personal bad behavior, not anything the POTUS needs to take responsibility for. (His responsibility in such cases would be to make sure these things are punished.)

That SecDef Gates will resign, and prolly by the end of the year, is a certainty (he's already said that is the case). I don't see it as due to this situation, however. The 'few bad apples' defense works for him in this case as well.

The anti-war, anti-military left will certainly trumpet these isolated cases to 'prove' our military is evil-- why wouldn't they? The anti-war, anti-military left is NOT on board these remaining wars, or the new war, and rather find them an excellent and compelling reason to oppose O.

Now will the IDF or the settlers come under their own deserved criticism and censure and punishment, because they do the same thing as to having 'trophy' pictures taken with dead Paleys?

LWW
03-23-2011, 01:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These newly reported incidents can be compared to those at Abu Ghraib, in that US armed service personnel behaved abominably, to the disgrace of their uniform and their country, and deserve whatever punishment is meted upon due process of (military) law.</div></div>

True. This incident involves actual deaths. Abu Ghraib consisted of making some guys wear women's panties on their heads.

Making a moral equivalence argument is entirely lame.

LWW
03-23-2011, 01:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are different, and therefore not exactly comparable, in that this situation is clearly not anything ordered from the chain of command, whereas what went on at Abu Ghraib provably went up the chain and was ordered by that chain of command, up to and including the president.</div></div>

Oh please. Bush never ordered Abu Ghraib, and you know that no evidence to support this wild accusation exists, and I doubt very seriously that any evidence exists that Obama ordered these events.

LWW
03-23-2011, 01:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gen. "Dirty" Sanchez was sent to Iraq to Gitmoize the treatment of Iraqis imprisoned using the methods he used at Gitmo, and that he did. Unless one thinks that these lowest level personnel personally brought dog leashes and came up with sexually humiliating the prisoners.</div></div>

Anyplace with dogs is likely to have dog leashes ... which weren't used as you propose at GITMO either.

LWW
03-23-2011, 01:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whether O accepts responsibility or not will be both a political and strategic decision. He may well do that, or he may not, hard to say.</div></div>

My bet is that he won't, and that will be political as he has the Obamanation already making excuses for him.

LWW
03-23-2011, 01:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 'few bad apples' defense is actually true in this case, and so far as I remember, that's the position that W took. US personnel have been involved in alleged murders and rapes, but that is personal bad behavior, not anything the POTUS needs to take responsibility for. (His responsibility in such cases would be to make sure these things are punished.)</div></div>

Didn't you just say Bush ordered it?

LWW
03-23-2011, 01:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The anti-war, anti-military left will certainly trumpet these isolated cases to 'prove' our military is evil-- why wouldn't they? The anti-war, anti-military left is NOT on board these remaining wars, or the new war, and rather find them an excellent and compelling reason to oppose O.</div></div>

And those are leftists that I respect even though I disagree with ... at least they are consistent. The majority of the anti war movement however has evaporated since the media stopped with their daily death counts ... akk done to gin up partisan hate.

LWW
03-23-2011, 01:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now will the IDF or the settlers come under their own deserved criticism and censure and punishment, because they do the same thing as to having 'trophy' pictures taken with dead Paleys?</div></div>

Irrelevant to the discussion.

LWW
03-23-2011, 01:55 AM
And, FWIW, the Obama death count is at 1,105.

Haven't seen the death count used for awhile have you?

It proves what I said in the past ... dead US soldiers are merely stage props for American Pravda and the hyper-partisan left. They are displayed when it fits the agenda, and hidden away when it doesn't.

Qtec
03-23-2011, 03:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> True. This incident involves actual deaths.<u> Abu Ghraib consisted of making some guys wear women's panties on their heads.</u>

Making a moral equivalence argument is entirely lame.</div></div>

Total BS.

Q

LWW
03-23-2011, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These newly reported incidents can be compared to those at Abu Ghraib, in that US armed service personnel behaved abominably, to the disgrace of their uniform and their country, and deserve whatever punishment is meted upon due process of (military) law.</div></div>

True. This incident involves actual deaths. Abu Ghraib consisted of making some guys wear women's panties on their heads.

Making a moral equivalence argument is entirely lame. </div></div>

Such as this:

http://www.viet-justice.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/MaleBurka.jpg

which the far left, in collective unison, described as torture ... ordered personally by the <span style='font-size: 11pt'>EEEVILLL</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>B-B-B-BOOOOSH</span>!!!!

LWW
03-23-2011, 04:01 AM
Meanwhile, things like this:

http://soundmigration.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/bodies-stacked.jpg

and this:

http://www.spiegel.de/images/image-194584-galleryV9-ghyz.jpg

have the very same people, with a handful of exceptions, tripping all over each other to see who can exonerate the regime the fastest.

Qtec
03-23-2011, 04:09 AM
link (http://www.google.nl/images?q=Abu%20Ghraib&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=nl&tab=wi&biw=1280&bih=804)

Soldier posing with dead guy.

http://en.wikivisual.com/images/9/9e/AbuGhraibScandalGraner55.jpg

Hazing.

http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2008/02/gallery_abu_ghraib/abu7.jpg

A few bad apples...........?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vMrCu3Qr-RM/TPzfEEtFUpI/AAAAAAAAENY/NhzYwwCPNOs/s320/Abu_Ghraib_prison19.jpg

Still proud?

What happened to American exceptionalism ?

Q

LWW
03-23-2011, 06:34 AM
I'm wondering how long it is before someone posts the Austrailian TV and Daily Mirror faked Abu Ghraib photos which the far left still keeps trying to pass off as real?

Qtec
03-23-2011, 08:37 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vMrCu3Qr-RM/TPzfEEtFUpI/AAAAAAAAENY/NhzYwwCPNOs/s320/Abu_Ghraib_prison19.jpg

Fake?

Q

LWW
03-23-2011, 09:16 AM
Before someone posts this obvious fake:
http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2008/02/gallery_abu_ghraib/abu7.jpg

let me ask how many dead giveaways to it's fakery does it have?

LWW
03-23-2011, 09:21 AM
Our leftists can't get their collectivist shorts unwound enough to realize that as bad as Abu Ghraib was ... it pales in comparison to this.

Furthermore, the real cause of Abu Ghraib was that we had just went under 8 years of RIF's under Clinton and MP's were among the highest prone to RIF's.

Hence, we then went into operating a POW prison with reservists instead of experienced law enforcement.

Now, in a moment of extreme hypocrisy, they are unwilling to judge this regime in a fair manner ... much less the hyper-critical standards by which they judged the prior regime.

Soflasnapper
03-23-2011, 03:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These newly reported incidents can be compared to those at Abu Ghraib, in that US armed service personnel behaved abominably, to the disgrace of their uniform and their country, and deserve whatever punishment is meted upon due process of (military) law.</div></div>

True. This incident involves actual deaths. Abu Ghraib consisted of making some guys wear women's panties on their heads.

Making a moral equivalence argument is entirely lame. </div></div>

I haven't heard that the deaths in these cases were the problem. Weren't these 'righteous kills,' with only the trophy picture aftermath the problem? Maybe just my assumption, but I haven't heard to the contrary.

There were over 100 homicides among detainees and prisoners held by US forces (not sure if any of these were at Abu Ghraib or not).

Soflasnapper
03-23-2011, 03:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our leftists can't get their collectivist shorts unwound enough to realize that as bad as Abu Ghraib was ... it pales in comparison to this.

Furthermore, the real cause of Abu Ghraib was that we had just went under 8 years of RIF's under Clinton and MP's were among the highest prone to RIF's.

Hence, we then went into operating a POW prison with reservists instead of experienced law enforcement.

Now, in a moment of extreme hypocrisy, they are unwilling to judge this regime in a fair manner ... much less the hyper-critical standards by which they judged the prior regime. </div></div>

No, they put a whole cell block out of the control of the general there, turning it over to contractors.

Soflasnapper
03-23-2011, 03:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are different, and therefore not exactly comparable, in that this situation is clearly not anything ordered from the chain of command, whereas what went on at Abu Ghraib provably went up the chain and was ordered by that chain of command, up to and including the president.</div></div>

Oh please. Bush never ordered Abu Ghraib, and you know that no evidence to support this wild accusation exists, and I doubt very seriously that any evidence exists that Obama ordered these events. </div></div>

No, I know that there is evidence to support this accusation.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Authorized Abu Ghraib Torture, FBI Email Says
by NewStandard Staff
Among a new batch of documents rights groups have forced the gov't to release, a Bureau communication refers to a presidential Executive Order endorsing some forms of torture witnessed at Iraq prison.

Dec. 21, 2004 – Repeated references in an internal FBI email suggest that the president issued a special order to permit some of the more objectionable torture techniques used at Abu Ghraib and other US-run prison facilities around Iraq. The email was among a new batch of FBI documents revealed by civil rights advocates on Monday. Other documents describe the initiation of investigations into alleged incidents of torture and rape at detention facilities in Iraq.
Toolbox
Email to a Friend
Print-friendly Version
Add to My Morning Paper

The email, which was obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, represents the first hard evidence directly connecting the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal and the White House. The author of the email, whose name is blanked out but whose title is described as "On Scene Commander -- Baghdad," contains ten explicit mentions of an "Executive Order" that the author said mandated US military personnel to engage in extraordinary interrogation tactics.

An Executive Order is a presidential edict -- sometimes public, sometimes secretive -- instituting special laws or instructions that override or complement existing legislation. The White House has officially neither admitted nor denied that the president has issued an Executive Order pertaining to interrogation techniques.

The specific methods mentioned in the email as having been approved by the unnamed Executive Order and witnessed by FBI agents include sleep deprivation, placing hoods over prisoners’ heads, the use of loud music for sensory overload, stripping detainees naked, forcing captives to stand in so-called "stress positions," and the employment of work dogs. One of the more horrifying tools of intimidation, Army canines were used at the prison to terrorize inmates, as depicted in photos taken inside Abu Ghraib.

The correspondence is dated May 22, 2004 -- a couple of weeks after images of torture and humiliation at the prison broke in the world media -- and was sent between FBI officials attempting to clarify the Bureau’s position on the terminology to use when categorizing and reporting such techniques. The author repeatedly states those techniques were, at least temporarily, permitted under the mysterious presidential directive. The author also wrote that Pentagon policy had since restricted most of the techniques to require specific authorization from the chain of command.

"As stated, there was a revision last week in the military’s standard operating procedures based on the Executive Order," the letter reads. "I have been told that all interrogation techniques previously authorized by the Executive Order are still on the table but that certain techniques can only be used if very high-level authority is granted." The author goes on to recount having seen a military email that said certain techniques -- including "stress positions," the use of dogs, "sleep management," hoods, "stripping (except for health inspection)," and blaring music -- cannot be used without special authorization.

The author wonders if techniques that fall within the scope of the Executive Order should be referred to as "abuse," since they are technically legal. Unless otherwise advised by the Bureau, the email continues, agents "will still not report the use of these techniques as ‘abuse’ since we will not be in a position to know whether or not the authorization for these tactics was received from the aforementioned officials."

The author does believe that interrogation methods that involve "physical beatings, sexual humiliation or touching" clearly constitute "abuse," suggesting they are not within the scope of the repeatedly referenced Executive Order.

The email says that FBI personnel operating at Abu Ghraib witnessed but did not participate in prisoner interrogations that involved actions approved by the Executive Order. That statement upholds separate documentation also obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests backed by a lawsuit on the part of the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

As reported by The NewStandard, documents revealed in October showed that FBI agents had witnessed abuses like those mentioned in the email, in addition to many more severe actions.

The email that was revealed on Monday is the first official document to state that the Oval Office was the source of directives permitting abuse and torture.

After the ACLU released the documents, White House, Pentagon and FBI officials told reporters that the author of the email was mistaken, and that the order was not an Executive Order, but a Defense Department directive. All sources refused to be identified in news reports.

The White House does not appear to have ever officially denied that President Bush issued an Executive Order specifying interrogation techniques, though none has been made public. The ACLU and other organizations involved in forcing the release of documents regarding prisoner treatment at Abu Ghraib as well as prison camps in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba have demanded the White House "confirm or deny the existence of such an order," according to an ACLU press release issued on Monday.

Last June the president insisted that the only authorization he has issued with regard to interrogation procedures was that American personnel "would conform to US law and would be consistent with international treaty obligations."

But as the unidentified FBI official noted in his email, techniques are made legal under US law if and when the president issues an Executive Order rendering them so. </div></div>

Oh, my! Oh, dear! (http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1348)

Soflasnapper
03-23-2011, 03:33 PM
The general who led the investigation said Rumsfeld and Bush knew.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bush and Rumsfeld 'knew about Abu Ghraib'

By David Usborne in New York

Tuesday, 19 June 2007


The two-star Army General who led the first military investigation into human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has bluntly questioned the integrity of former US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, suggesting he misled the US Congress by downplaying his own prior knowledge of what had happened.

Major General Antonio Taguba also claimed in an interview with The New Yorker magazine published yesterday that President George Bush also "had to be aware" of the atrocities despite saying at the time of the scandal that he had been out of the loop until he saw images in the US media.</div></div>

B-b-b-b-b-ut LWW says that isn't so! (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-and-rumsfeld-knew-about-abu-ghraib-453690.html)

Soflasnapper
03-23-2011, 03:38 PM
From Sy Hersch's reporting:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Locked in Abu Ghraib
The prison scandal keeps getting worse for the Bush administration.
By Fred Kaplan

Posted Monday, May 17, 2004, at 6:22 PM ET

Feeling the heatFeeling the heatThe White House is about to get hit by the biggest tsunami since the Iran-Contra affair, maybe since Watergate. President George W. Bush is trapped inside the compound, immobilized by his own stay-the-course campaign strategy. Can he escape the massive tidal waves? Maybe. But at this point, it's not clear how.

If today's investigative shockers—Seymour Hersh's latest article in The New Yorker and a three-part piece in Newsweek—are true, it's hard to avoid concluding that responsibility for the Abu Ghraib atrocities goes straight to the top, both in the Pentagon and the White House, and that varying degrees of blame can be ascribed to officials up and down the chain of command.

Both stories are worth reading in full. The gist is that last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld put in place a secret operation that, in Hersh's words, "encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."
Advertisement

This operation stemmed from an earlier supersecret program involving interrogation of suspected al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. A memo to President Bush from White House counsel Alberto Gonzales—excerpted in Newsweek—rationalized the program by noting that we need "to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American citizens." This new sort of war, he went on, renders the Geneva Conventions' limitations on interrogating enemy prisoners "obsolete" and "quaint."

This program, Hersh reports, was approved by the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the National Security Council. President Bush was "informed" of it. Hersh also notes that its harsh techniques yielded results; terrorists were rounded up as a result. So, last spring, after Saddam's regime fell in Iraq and Rumsfeld grew frustrated over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction or to learn anything about the insurgents who continued to resist the U.S.-led occupation, he put the same program in motion in Iraq.

That's when all hell broke loose, and conventional prisoners of war—whose wardens had up to that point been following Geneva rules—were suddenly treated like terrorists whose deadly secrets must immediately be squeezed out. Hence, the ensuing torture.</div></div>

My, my, my! (http://www.slate.com/id/2100683/)

pooltchr
03-23-2011, 03:47 PM
Well, we know that Nancy was updated on the interrogation techniques being used on terrorists, so one would logically think that anyone further up the power ladder would be aware of it as well.

Steve

Sev
03-23-2011, 06:01 PM
Well at least they didnt cut off their heads.

LWW
03-24-2011, 03:49 AM
So your "PROOF" is that the EO didn't authorize any of the activities which got the GI's in trouble?

WOW!

LWW
03-24-2011, 04:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, they put a whole cell block out of the control of the general there, turning it over to contractors. </div></div>

Proving Goebbels and Hitler correct are we ... that the most convincing lie is one that contains an irrefutable kernel of truth.

I assume that you are talking about Brigadier General Janis Karpinski who was convicted of dereliction of duty, making a material misrepresentation to investigators, and failure to obey a lawful order.

Kapinski's defense was that as a general she was not actually in charge of the prison, even though:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In his final report, Major General Antonio Taguba blamed Karpinski for the abuse, indicating she had not paid attention to the daily operations of the prison. According to Taguba, Karpinski rarely visited the prisons during her tenure, and she reviewed and signed reports about claims of abuse without following up to make sure her orders were carried out. As a consequence, the abuse was allowed to continue and her subordinates developed a lax attitude towards protocol. Karpinski was cited throughout the Taguba Report for repeated violations of Army procedure, good management and exercising her command as directed by Army regulations. During interviews it was reported within the Taguba report that Karpinski was disconnected from the reality of the situation in her area of command. </div></div>

and no evidence of said control by MI was ever presented.

But ... it works for those who form an opinion and then seek only data which supports it.

Now, as to a Blackwater link ... I've seen nothing associating them with AG ... although they have a secretive role and unsavory history.

The very fact that Blackwater exists is again the direct result of RIF's in the 1980's.

LWW
03-24-2011, 04:37 AM
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/03-23_11_Stryker_Pho20110322102731.jpg

Qtec
03-24-2011, 04:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY



The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of “a few bad apples” acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. </div></div>

report (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Detainees.121108.pdf)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON — A report released Thursday by leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee said top Bush administration officials, including Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, bore major responsibility for the abuses committed by American troops in interrogations at Abu Ghraib in Iraq; Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; and other military detention centers. </div></div> link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/washington/12detainee.html)


Q

LWW
03-24-2011, 05:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NO
Maybe
Not a chance!


Steve </div></div>

You neglected the seemingly never ending <span style='font-size: 14pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> deflection whenever anything critical of dear leader comes to the fore.

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 06:49 AM
I thought that goes without saying.

Steve

LWW
03-24-2011, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought that goes without saying.

Steve </div></div>

Sadly, you are correct.

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 09:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, we know that Nancy was updated on the interrogation techniques being used on terrorists, so one would logically think that anyone further up the power ladder would be aware of it as well.

Steve </div></div>

Not exactly true. She was briefed on what they said they COULD do, and anticipated doing, but not that they'd already been using these methods, and not that they were using a LOT of these methods in sequence on individuals.

However, certainly the executive branch knew what they had ordered, permitted, and all that was being done. Alberto Gonzalez as head of WH Counsel Office told them they'd better lawyer up some explanation or they'd be liable for prosecution under the War Crimes Act (signed by Reagan) including possible capital punishment as a worst-case punishment.

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 09:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So your "PROOF" is that the EO didn't authorize any of the activities which got the GI's in trouble?

WOW! </div></div>

So it was said, LATER.

What gets said isn't always true, and unless someone looks into undisclosed EOs to be sure, this cannot be taken as disproof of the original FBI position.

LWW
03-24-2011, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So your "PROOF" is that the EO didn't authorize any of the activities which got the GI's in trouble?

WOW! </div></div>

So it was said, LATER.

What gets said isn't always true, and unless someone looks into undisclosed EOs to be sure, this cannot be taken as disproof of the original FBI position. </div></div>

Evidenced by?

What's that?

Nothing at all?

Imagine that.

Now, did you have anything to add to the discussion that isn't some variation of B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!

What's that?

Nothing at all?

Imagine that.

LWW
03-24-2011, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, we know that Nancy was updated on the interrogation techniques being used on terrorists, so one would logically think that anyone further up the power ladder would be aware of it as well.

Steve </div></div>

Not exactly true. She was briefed on what they said they COULD do, and anticipated doing, but not that they'd already been using these methods, and not that they were using a LOT of these methods in sequence on individuals.

However, certainly the executive branch knew what they had ordered, permitted, and all that was being done. Alberto Gonzalez as head of WH Counsel Office told them they'd better lawyer up some explanation or they'd be liable for prosecution under the War Crimes Act (signed by Reagan) including possible capital punishment as a worst-case punishment. </div></div>

What is your definition of torture?

Do you believe we actually waterboarded anyone as defined by the last war crimes tribunal?

Do you even know what that definition was?

Do you even care?

Stretch
03-24-2011, 01:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, we know that Nancy was updated on the interrogation techniques being used on terrorists, so one would logically think that anyone further up the power ladder would be aware of it as well.

Steve </div></div>

Not exactly true. She was briefed on what they said they COULD do, and anticipated doing, but not that they'd already been using these methods, and not that they were using a LOT of these methods in sequence on individuals.

However, certainly the executive branch knew what they had ordered, permitted, and all that was being done. Alberto Gonzalez as head of WH Counsel Office told them they'd better lawyer up some explanation or they'd be liable for prosecution under the War Crimes Act (signed by Reagan) including possible capital punishment as a worst-case punishment. </div></div>

What is your definition of torture?

Do you believe we actually waterboarded anyone as defined by the last war crimes tribunal?

Do you even know what that definition was?

Do you even care? </div></div>

Did you bother adults with endless inane questions as a child? You sound like a spoiled brat. St.

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 06:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So your "PROOF" is that the EO didn't authorize any of the activities which got the GI's in trouble?

WOW! </div></div>

So it was said, LATER.

What gets said isn't always true, and unless someone looks into undisclosed EOs to be sure, this cannot be taken as disproof of the original FBI position. </div></div>

Evidenced by?

What's that?

Nothing at all?

Imagine that.

Now, did you have anything to add to the discussion that isn't some variation of B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!

What's that?

Nothing at all?

Imagine that. </div></div>

My evidence is that the FBI memo said they had heard about this EO authorizing these treatments. They had no reason to lie, and that they did say this in the memo(s) is verified.

Your evidence that my evidence is untrue is the undocumented sole word of an administration, which had every reason to lie, and provably did lie, many many times.

You may take their unsubstantiated word as the gospel truth, but my position, for ample reasons, is that I will believe that when real evidence-- an independent review of disclosed previously secret EOs-- is performed.

This is the standard any competent investigator would use in this fact situation of differing claims. You evidently lack a properly working bs detector.

LWW
03-25-2011, 04:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My evidence is that the FBI memo said they had heard about this EO authorizing these treatments. They had no reason to lie, and that they did say this in the memo(s) is verified.</div></div>

Irrelevant as the memo doesn't say what you claim it said.

LWW
03-25-2011, 04:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your evidence that my evidence is untrue is the undocumented sole word of an administration, which had every reason to lie, and provably did lie, many many times. </div></div>

My evidence that your evidence is untrue is that you have no evidence.

LWW
03-25-2011, 04:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You may take their unsubstantiated word as the gospel truth, but my position, for ample reasons, is that I will believe that when real evidence-- an independent review of disclosed previously secret EOs-- is performed.</div></div>

That statement is in direct conflict with your "EVIDENCE" since if you had actually reviewed it, you would never have posted it.

LWW
03-25-2011, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the standard any competent investigator would use in this fact situation of differing claims. You evidently lack a properly working bs detector.

</div></div>

Mine broke after using it on this forum analyzing the cabal's postings.

LWW
03-25-2011, 04:09 AM
Now, how about just answering the questions?

If you are going to pontificate about torture, these should be simple.

And, as a warning, you might want to ask 9 Ball Paul about what happened to him when he went down the same path as you are heading.

What is your definition of torture?

Do you believe we actually waterboarded anyone as defined by the last war crimes tribunal?

Do you even know what that definition was?

Do you even care?

Qtec
03-25-2011, 04:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What is your definition of torture?</div></div>

Does it matter what HIS definition is?

link (http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/69mjxc.htm)

Q