Appalling new prison photos!!! - DPChallenge Forums

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/25/2005 01:24:25 PM · #451

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by RonB:
Sorry, gingerbaker, but without editing, I can't respond to the garbled response you made to my post ( garbled style blocks
Originally posted by RonB:

Sorry - I still can't get the hang of this stuff.

Originally posted by RonB:
But I will respond to these two:
Originally posted by RonB:

[quote=gingerbaker][quote=RonB][quote=gingerbaker]They happily give examples of prisoners given multiple beatings as being extremely painful, but clearly not torture(!?)

I looked at the document again, very carefully, for even ONE example of what you charge here - and couldn't find a single one. Could you cut/paste examples of what you are charging here?

No - please look again, for it is there.

RonB -- In other words, NO, you cannot cut/paste a single example supporting your charge.

================================================
I can not cut and paste it, RonB, because the source you provided is a pdf document, which does not allow cutting and pasting.

Howevr, I direct your attention to PAGE 9, paragraph 6.

It has an example of that the Bush administration uses in ITS argument to buttress it case that routine beatings do not amount to torture.

And the document is filled with examples like this. Why can you not see them?

Actually, if you are using Adobe Acrobat Reader version 7.0 ( or higher ) you CAN cut and paste using the "select" tool. Like so:

Originally posted by Page 9, Paragraph 6:

Price v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82, 92-93 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). That court concluded that a complaint that alleged beatings at the hands of police but that did not provide details concerning "the severity of plaintiffs' alleged beatings, including their frequency, duration, the parts of the body at which they were aimed, and the weapons used to carry them out," did not suffice "to ensure that [it] satisfied] the TVPA's rigorous definition of torture." Id. at 93.

Notice the portions which I have highlighted in bold for easy viewing. Note that this ONE case does not refer to "substantiated" beatings. Only "alleged" beatings - without supportive evidence.
I can't see the other examples that you claim support your charges because there aren't any.

If you don't have a version of Acrobat Reader that can cut and paste, I'd be glad to do it for you if you could provide the page/paragraph that WOULD substantiate your charges.

Message edited by author 2005-10-25 13:28:30.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10/25/2005 01:41:10 PM · #452

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
You know what all this means, right?

It means that the Bush administration is trying to change the definition of torture to only the most extreme of extreme cases.

gingerbaker is correct, the administration has redefined torture more narrowly. And why has it done so? It has done so in order to allow U.S. government agents to engage in war crimes (acts that are war crimes under the prior definition of torture) and avoid legal accountability. This is at the heart of their redefinition exercise.

Is this re-direction of U.S. foreign policy one you endorse, RonB?

According to Elizabeth Holzman, Alberto Gonzales, in one of his memos to George Bush, recommended that the Bush administration back out of the Geneva Conventions because by doing so they could possibly avoid legal accountibility from the US War Powers Act of 1996. That bit of legislation applies to any member of the US military or government, including high ranking officials that act in ways contrary to the Geneva Conventions, and carry with it severe penalties.

Rather than trusting in third party interpretations, why don't you just post an excerpt of the actual text of the memo containing the recommendation that she ( and apparently, you ) claims that Alberto Gonzales made? Accusations are easy to make, and to repeat, but documenting those accusations is far superior and much more credible.

********* ********** ************ ********** *********

"January 25, 2002

"MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT

"FROM: ALBERTO R. GONZALES

"SUBJECT: DECISION RE APPLICATION OF ON THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF
PRISONERS OF WAR TO THE CONFLICT WITH AL QAEDA AND THE TALIBAN

"Purpose:
On January 18, I advised you that the Department of Justice had issued a formal legal opinion concluding that the Geneva convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW) does not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda. I also advised you that DOJ's opinion concludes that there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW does not apply with respect to the conflict with the Taliban. I understand that you decided that GPW does not apply and, accordingly, that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war under the GPW...

"This memorandum outlines the ramifications of your decision and the secretary's request for reconsideration...

"Ramifications of Determination that GPW Does Not Apply...
-Substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441).
*That statue, enacted in 1996, prohibits the commission of a war
crime by or against a U.S. person, including U.S. officials. "War
crime" for these purposes is defined to include any grave breach
of GPW or any violation of common article 3 thereof (such as,
"outrages against personal dignity"). Some of these provisions
apply (if the GPW applies) irregardless of whether the
individual being detained qualifies as a POW. Punishments for
violations of Section 2441 include the death penalty. A
determination that the GPW is not applicable to the Taliban
would mean that Section 2441 would not apply to actions taken
with respect to the Taliban.
-Adhering to your determination that GPW does not apply would guard
effectively against misconstruction or misapplication of Section
2441 for several reasons.
*...
*...
*Third, it is difficult to predict the motives of prosecuters
and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue
unwarranted charges based on Section 2441. Your determination
would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 does
not apply, which would supply a solid defense to any future
prosecution..."

Second paragraph down click on 1/25/02 memo.

10/25/2005 01:46:03 PM · #453

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

The Bush administration, with its new definition of torture, has essentially made allowable more acts of abuse than were allowed (legal) under the old definition.

Please provide an example of an action that you would consider "torture" that the NEW definition WOULD allow but the OLD definition did NOT allow. If you are correct in your charge, this should not be difficult to do.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/25/2005 01:55:04 PM · #454

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
You know what all this means, right?

It means that the Bush administration is trying to change the definition of torture to only the most extreme of extreme cases.

gingerbaker is correct, the administration has redefined torture more narrowly. And why has it done so? It has done so in order to allow U.S. government agents to engage in war crimes (acts that are war crimes under the prior definition of torture) and avoid legal accountability. This is at the heart of their redefinition exercise.

Is this re-direction of U.S. foreign policy one you endorse, RonB?

According to Elizabeth Holzman, Alberto Gonzales, in one of his memos to George Bush, recommended that the Bush administration back out of the Geneva Conventions because by doing so they could possibly avoid legal accountibility from the US War Powers Act of 1996. That bit of legislation applies to any member of the US military or government, including high ranking officials that act in ways contrary to the Geneva Conventions, and carry with it severe penalties.

Rather than trusting in third party interpretations, why don't you just post an excerpt of the actual text of the memo containing the recommendation that she ( and apparently, you ) claims that Alberto Gonzales made? Accusations are easy to make, and to repeat, but documenting those accusations is far superior and much more credible.

********* ********** ************ ********** *********

"January 25, 2002

"MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT

"FROM: ALBERTO R. GONZALES

"SUBJECT: DECISION RE APPLICATION OF ON THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF
PRISONERS OF WAR TO THE CONFLICT WITH AL QAEDA AND THE TALIBAN

"Purpose:
On January 18, I advised you that the Department of Justice had issued a formal legal opinion concluding that the Geneva convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW) does not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda. I also advised you that DOJ's opinion concludes that there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW does not apply with respect to the conflict with the Taliban. I understand that you decided that GPW does not apply and, accordingly, that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war under the GPW...

"This memorandum outlines the ramifications of your decision and the secretary's request for reconsideration...

"Ramifications of Determination that GPW Does Not Apply...
-Substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441).
*That statue, enacted in 1996, prohibits the commission of a war
crime by or against a U.S. person, including U.S. officials. "War
crime" for these purposes is defined to include any grave breach
of GPW or any violation of common article 3 thereof (such as,
"outrages against personal dignity"). Some of these provisions
apply (if the GPW applies) irregardless of whether the
individual being detained qualifies as a POW. Punishments for
violations of Section 2441 include the death penalty. A
determination that the GPW is not applicable to the Taliban
would mean that Section 2441 would not apply to actions taken
with respect to the Taliban.
-Adhering to your determination that GPW does not apply would guard
effectively against misconstruction or misapplication of Section
2441 for several reasons.
*...
*...
*Third, it is difficult to predict the motives of prosecuters
and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue
unwarranted charges based on Section 2441. Your determination
would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 does
not apply, which would supply a solid defense to any future
prosecution..."

Second paragraph down click on 1/25/02 memo.

1) I don't see a single "recommendation" in that excerpt ( nor in the document, for that matter - it seems to be more of an outline of ramifications for consideration )
2) The media love to hype thier agenda, so I don't place much stock in the media's interpretation's of what is in a document when I can view the document myself - especially when politics are involved. As such, I don't place much value on the article you link to.
3) In any event, you have not substantiated in the least the charge that Gonzales "recommended that the Bush administration back out of the Geneva Conventions".

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10/25/2005 01:56:38 PM · #455

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So would you approve of an independent commission to investigate interrogation policies and practices all the way up to the highest levels of government?

I would, if a majority of our elected representatives thought it necessary. I would NOT if only a vocal few, or the loudest media pundits thought it was necessary.

Since our elected representatives represent their constituents' wishes, what would you ask of YOUR elected representative to do? Would you want them to push for an investigative independent commission? Given that the torture issue does not seem to be going away, and that high government officials have come out with memorandums that have set the groudwork for policy ignoring the Geneva Conventions and establishing allowable torture practices, would YOU say that an independent commission should be established?

I would ask them to visit with some military personnel who have recently returned from the Iraq theater and ask THEM ( multiple them ) what their take is on the accusations of "administration policy". If they then feel that additional investigation is warranted, I would say that they should push for an investigation.
The fact that the torture issue does not seem to be going away is because it is an emotional issue that the left keeps alive with the hope that if it is repeated often enough, will "convert" some voters to their side - ABB.
I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent person, and frankly, I do NOT see that officials in the Bush adminstration have "come out with memorandums that have set the groudwork for policy ignoring the Geneva Conventions and establishing allowable torture practices". Perhaps you could provide new evidence that can prove me to be wrong in my thinking ( we have debated this issue before, as you know, and no one has yet convinced me that Guantanamo detainees are entitled to Geneva Convention rights ). Officials HAVE come out with memoranda that establish DIS-allowable practices, as I have pointed out to GeneralE.

Earlier in the month the Senate wanted to include standards for interrogation and treatment of detainees in a military spending bill that the Bush White House has said it would veto if the anti-terror language was included in the bill. Yet the Republican controlled Senate voted overwhelmingly to include it, lead by John McCain (a former POW) and Lindsay Graham, both Republicans. In addition 29 retired high ranking military officers endorsed this bill, including Gen. Colin Powell. It would ban the use of any kind of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. So why does the Bush administration see a problem with this? Do you have a problem with this? It's already been mentioned that interrogations using these types of methods do not yield any kind of meaningful information. The Bush administration is doing nothing to stop the atrocious torture being committed.

AS the article that GeneralE posted has pointed out, it seems that these kinds of treatments/tortures are far more widespread than has previously been reported in the mainstream press. This could very well indicate policy set by higher ranking Bush administration officials. As a former military man yourself, I would have thought you would be railing loudly against using any kind of cruel, inhuman, degrading torture/treatment upon anyone, as this greatly increases the likelihood of similar tactics being used on captured American/coalition personnel, as well as, creating more terrorists hell bent on inflicting revenge (and for many years to come). Human Rights Watch has already started the investigations and now it's up to Congress and the press to demand for an independent commission to investigate. You should most definitely agree to this too, as if the Bush administration indeed does have a policy of no torture, then they have nothing to hide, and you could rest with the knowledge that it was just a few "bad apples" in stressful positions that have been committing these atrocities.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/25/2005 02:36:39 PM · #456

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Second paragraph down click on 1/25/02 memo.

1) I don't see a single "recommendation" in that excerpt ( nor in the document, for that matter - it seems to be more of an outline of ramifications for consideration )

See the last section: "Response to Arguments for Applying GPW to the alQeada and Taliban. On balance, I believe, that the arguments for reconsideration and reversal are unpersuasive."

Originally posted by RonB:

2) The media love to hype thier agenda, so I don't place much stock in the media's interpretation's of what is in a document when I can view the document myself - especially when politics are involved. As such, I don't place much value on the article you link to.

The article I link to is merely where one can find the link to download a .pdf copy of the 1/25/02 Alberto Gonzales memo. The "interpretation" that is being done is by Elizabeth Holzman, a former US Congresswoman, who also served on the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate; served as DA and comptroller for NYC; and was appointed by President Clinton to serve on the Nazi and Japanese War Criminal Records Working Group. I think her experience shows she is pretty well versed in war crimes and legal matters. YOu can read more about what she had to say in an article in The Nation Magazine.

Originally posted by RonB:

3) In any event, you have not substantiated in the least the charge that Gonzales "recommended that the Bush administration back out of the Geneva Conventions".

Would the word, urge be more to your liking?

10/25/2005 03:11:52 PM · #457

No. It isn't urging or recommending anything. It is stating the "Ramifications of Determination that GPW Does Not Apply". It is not, as you (or perhaps Ms. Holzman) incorrectly infer, recommending or urging "that the Bush administration back out of the Geneva Conventions because by doing so they could possibly avoid legal accountibility from the US War Powers Act of 1996".

If you actually read the experts you quoted, it states that "you [the president, I presume] decided that GPW does not apply and, accordingly, that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war under the GPW", and therefore one (I assume, since you've selectively quoted) of the ramifications if this decision is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act".

So:
1) There is no recommendation.
2) There is no discussion of "backing out of" the Genenva Convention.
3) The decision that the GPW did not apply to Al Queada and/or the Taliban had already been made, so these ramifications can not be seen from this document as being causal to the decision.

Reading is fundamental. :)

10/25/2005 03:16:47 PM · #458

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Second paragraph down click on 1/25/02 memo.

1) I don't see a single "recommendation" in that excerpt ( nor in the document, for that matter - it seems to be more of an outline of ramifications for consideration )

See the last section: "Response to Arguments for Applying GPW to the alQeada and Taliban. On balance, I believe, that the arguments for reconsideration and reversal are unpersuasive."

Originally posted by RonB:
2) The media love to hype thier agenda, so I don't place much stock in the media's interpretation's of what is in a document when I can view the document myself - especially when politics are involved. As such, I don't place much value on the article you link to.

The article I link to is merely where one can find the link to download a .pdf copy of the 1/25/02 Alberto Gonzales memo. The "interpretation" that is being done is by Elizabeth Holzman, a former US Congresswoman, who also served on the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate; served as DA and comptroller for NYC; and was appointed by President Clinton to serve on the Nazi and Japanese War Criminal Records Working Group. I think her experience shows she is pretty well versed in war crimes and legal matters. YOu can read more about what she had to say in an article in The Nation Magazine.

Originally posted by RonB:
3) In any event, you have not substantiated in the least the charge that Gonzales "recommended that the Bush administration back out of the Geneva Conventions".

Would the word, urge be more to your liking?

Nope. The memo did not even HINT at SUGGESTING or IMPLYING that the Bush administration "back out of the Geneva Conventions". The only thing the memo did was to supply legal opinions on the APPLICABILITY of the GPW ( Geneva Conventions pertaining to treatment of Prisoners of War ) to Taliban and al Qaeda detainees, the ramifications of actions vis-a-vis the GPW, the rationale for determination of applicability, both pro and con, and responses to questions that have been/might be made pertaining to the applicability of GPW to Taliban and al Qaeda detainees. The Gonzales memo is a legal opinion, not a position paper.

10/25/2005 03:32:33 PM · #459

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

...official Bush administration documentary definition of "torture" as being the kind of treatment that actually produces organ failure or death.

And that anything short of THAT, is therefore not torture?

The problem: The words "such as" does not mean "actually produces". I hope I don't have to define what "such as" does mean.

CASE 2
The "Memorandum for James B. Comey" cites on page 9, paragraph 6 a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court: "That court concluded that a complaint that alleged beatingas at the hands of police but that did not provide details concerning 'the severity of plaintiffs' alleged beatings, including their frequency, duration, the parts of the body at which they were aimed, and the weapons used to carry them out,' did not suffice 'to ensure that [it] satisfied] the TVPA's rigorous definition of torture.'"

Your conlcusion:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

They happily give examples of prisoners given multiple beatings as being extremely painful, but clearly not torture(!?)

The problems:
1) I don't see any evidence that they are happy about anything in particular.
2) They are not giving examples of prisoners giving beatings, they are citing case law. These are not their conclusions, they are the conclusions of the court.
3) As already pointed out by Ron, there was no evidence given to substantiate the claims that there ever even were any beatings.

CASE 3
Already made above concerning the POW status (or lack thereof) of the Al Queda and Taliban detainees.

Guys, please learn to read more carefully. We could avoid so many of these misunderstandings that way.

10/25/2005 03:55:57 PM · #460

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Right.

And what of demanding proof, when none should be needed?

Proof should always be needed. That's why we have the fifth amendment. You should always be required to prove what you accuse people of. I'm very surprised you would believe otherwise. Is your case so weak that it can't stand up to the burden of proof? And how would you feel if you were brought into court, charged with a crime, and sentenced, and all the prosecution had to say was: "Proof? None should be needed."

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Of denying one said things, when one said them?

Of course, this goes back to proof. Please understand, often times your own prejudices will very likely cloud how you receive the comments of others. Perhaps because you apparently have some animosity against Christians, you've infered some far more offensive intent in some of Ron's past postings than he actually stated. However, if he did make these statements, then certainly it would be a fairly simple matter to find them.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Of saying a document does not contain references, when it does?

Please read my previous two posts. And then read those documents. Every word. Don't add your own inferences; don't apply the spin from MoveOn.org. Just read the documents, and make the case from the words they contain. It doesn't seem that you can.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Tell me, ScottK, have you not been around here long enough to recognize the argumentative proclivities of certain memers of the forum?

Of course. You and Olyuzi and Judith and MadMordegan (hey, where is MM anyway?), just to name a few. :)

10/25/2005 04:47:03 PM · #461

Originally posted by ScottK:

Its impossible to intelligently debate this issue when you guys can't even seem to read and comprehend the documents cited.

CASE 1
The "Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales" concludes, from a legal standpoint, that "Physical pain ammounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death".

Your conclusion:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
...official Bush administration documentary definition of "torture" as being the kind of treatment that actually produces organ failure or death.

And that anything short of THAT, is therefore not torture?

The problem: The words "such as" does not mean "actually produces". I hope I don't have to define what "such as" does mean.

---------------------------------------------------

Hi Scott,...please

See above: A distinction without a difference

What is your point? That I didn't use the EXACT correct english? The gist, the import, the meaning of what I was saying was clear enough, or so I thought?

And it was supported by the document. You still have not addressed THAT issue, nor has RonB.

CASE 2
The "Memorandum for James B. Comey" cites on page 9, paragraph 6 a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court: "That court concluded that a complaint that alleged beatingas at the hands of police but that did not provide details concerning 'the severity of plaintiffs' alleged beatings, including their frequency, duration, the parts of the body at which they were aimed, and the weapons used to carry them out,' did not suffice 'to ensure that [it] satisfied] the TVPA's rigorous definition of torture.'"

Your conlcusion:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
They happily give examples of prisoners given multiple beatings as being extremely painful, but clearly not torture(!?)

The problems:
1) I don't see any evidence that they are happy about anything in particular.
2) They are not giving examples of prisoners giving beatings, they are citing case law. These are not their conclusions, they are the conclusions of the court.
3) As already pointed out by Ron, there was no evidence given to substantiate the claims that there ever even were any beatings.

Again, you happily miss the point. The Bush administration, not I, used this - and other - examples of severe beatings not qualifying as torture to buttress their argument. That the case law was not robust was THEIR problem, not mine.

Again, my point is that memo was generated to more narrowly define "torture", so that the despicable acts the Bush administration had already carried out would NOT QUALIFY as such.

And the PROBLEM with that, is that any reasonable person KNOWS that what they are guilty of encouraging is, was, and always will be recognized as torture the world round.

10/25/2005 04:51:37 PM · #462

Originally posted by RonB:

If you don't have a version of Acrobat Reader that can cut and paste, I'd be glad to do it for you if you could provide the page/paragraph that WOULD substantiate your charges.

1) Thank you for the tip re Acrobat reader - I will endeavor to use it in future. :)

2) Please see my above reply to Scott re your analysis of the paragraph in question.

10/25/2005 05:35:00 PM · #463

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by RonB:

If you don't have a version of Acrobat Reader that can cut and paste, I'd be glad to do it for you if you could provide the page/paragraph that WOULD substantiate your charges.

1) Thank you for the tip re Acrobat reader - I will endeavor to use it in future. :)

2) Please see my above reply to Scott re your analysis of the paragraph in question.

I'll take that as a NO, you can't. I didn't think so, but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt ( for the third time ).
You may call it a moot point to make charges and then not substantiate them ( because you cannot ), as you did in the Bush, USA, Iraq, Hurricane... thread, where you accused the President of "playing golf" while Hurricate Katrina was bearing down on NOLA ( 09/04/2005 07:54:05 PM ). Then, maintain that your ( false charge )was "still moot, BTW" and that my challenge was "...perhaps grasping at minutiae - like whether or not Bush was actually "playing" golf at the golf course" ( 09/06/2005 10:12:04 AM ).
You have unfortunately demonstrated too often in these fora that you are so intent on smearing the character of the President and his administration that the truth, by necessity, becomes "collateral damage". Though, to be fair, you are not the only one who has succumbed to that temptation.

Message edited by author 2005-10-25 17:40:47.

10/25/2005 06:00:59 PM · #464

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Again, you happily miss the point.

Again with the "happy"? I'm actually frustrated and somewhat disgusted at the apparent disregard for simple logic and reading comprehension.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

The Bush administration, not I, used this - and other - examples of severe beatings not qualifying as torture to buttress their argument. That the case law was not robust was THEIR problem, not mine.

The Justice Department, in issuing legal advice to the administration, cited case law to support their advice. If they had not used case law, or had even flaunted case law, you would be ranting about how Bush ignores legal precident in running the country. Your beef is with the court, not the administration.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Again, my point is that memo was generated to more narrowly define "torture", so that the despicable acts the Bush administration had already carried out would NOT QUALIFY as such.

And my point is that you misinterpret - or twist - documents which clearly say one thing to fit your agenda. The memo was not "generated to more narrowly define 'torture'", but to identify what their legal possition was. It was not done "so that the despicable acts the Bush administration had already carried out would NOT QUALIFY as such" because, at the very least, 1) these opinions were issued before the war in Iraq even started and these supposed acts were committed, and 2) as I proved above, you have the causal relationship backwards - the decision was made, and the ramifications were then analysed. Never mind that what you are terming as "despicable acts" still hasn't risen above the level of hearsay and inuendo. But I guess with a worldview that eliminates proof, all that's required is a hatred of Bush to accept them as gospel.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

And the PROBLEM with that, is that any reasonable person KNOWS that what they are guilty of encouraging is, was, and always will be recognized as torture the world round.

And the PROBLEM with that is, that since you seem to ignore reason in supporting your arguement, I'm not sure that I accept that you're qualified to define what a "reasonable" person knows. I think that a "reasonable" person, making a "reasonable" argument, would be able to respond to Ron's request:

Originally posted by RonB:

...instead of relying on unreasoned, emotional responses.

Message edited by author 2005-10-25 18:01:30.

10/25/2005 06:06:31 PM · #465

2) Please see my above reply to Scott re your analysis of the paragraph in question. [/quote]
I'll take that as a NO, you can't. I didn't think so, but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt ( for the third time ).
You may call it a moot point to make charges and then not substantiate them ( because you cannot ), as you did in the Bush, USA, Iraq, Hurricane... thread, where you accused the President of "playing golf" while Hurricate Katrina was bearing down on NOLA ( 09/04/2005 07:54:05 PM ). Then, maintain that your ( false charge )was "still moot, BTW" and that my challenge was "...perhaps grasping at minutiae - like whether or not Bush was actually "playing" golf at the golf course" ( 09/06/2005 10:12:04 AM ).
You have unfortunately demonstrated too often in these fora that you are so intent on smearing the character of the President and his administration that the truth, by necessity, becomes "collateral damage". Though, to be fair, you are not the only one who has succumbed to that temptation. [/quote]

Ummm... Right . Sure.

(knocking head against wall)

Interesting point you make. I just spent about an hour reviewing some of the political threads of the past year and a half, seeing all your claims, demands, charges and countercharges.

Always and ever the staunch defender of Bush et al.

And almost always, in the cruel spotlight of hindsight, dead wrong.

The "character" of the president and his ilk needs no smearing - its despicable nature is abhorrently apparent to all to see.

Getting the opportunity to observe the truth about these scoundrels is NOT easy - it requires inquiry, and vigilance against obfuscation, disinformation, secrecy, blatant lying, and various forms of coercion.

Before you start questioning my intellectual honesty, mister, I suggest you take a good hard look at your own posting history.

Jeesh.

Message edited by author 2005-10-25 18:09:26.

10/25/2005 06:31:56 PM · #466

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Ummm... Right . Sure.

(knocking head against wall)

Interesting point you make. I just spent about an hour reviewing some of the political threads of the past year and a half, seeing all your claims, demands, charges and countercharges.

Always and ever the staunch defender of Bush et al.

And almost always, in the cruel spotlight of hindsight, dead wrong.

The "character" of the president and his ilk needs no smearing - its despicable nature is abhorrently apparent to all to see.

Getting the opportunity to observe the truth about these scoundrels is NOT easy - it requires inquiry, and vigilance against obfuscation, disinformation, secrecy, blatant lying, and various forms of coercion.

Before you start questioning my intellectual honesty, mister, I suggest you take a good hard look at your own posting history.

Jeesh.

I'm absolutely sure that if you COULD provide an example, you would - and say something like "OK, Mr big pants" followed by your example - just as you did in another thread ( reference on request ).
I'm also absolutely sure that THIS ( non ) response demonstrates that you are unwilling to take responsibility and face up to the fact that you posted false accusations against the administration. To me, that appears to be a problem of ego.
As for my posting history, I stand by all that I have posted - qualified, of course, to include those which I have later posted admitting that others were in error, were overly harsh, or were later shown to be issues on which I was incompletely or mis-informed. Yes, I do admit when evidence, or circumstance, show that I have been wrong.
In my posts, I try my best to separate fact from belief or opinion, but have always, to the best of my knowledge, provided evidence for every statement I have presented, whether as fact or as opinion, if challenged to do so. That's more than I can say for many others in these fora.
It is beyond reason to believe that you would be able to post excerpts of postings that I made where I was "dead wrong" and the hard evidence to prove it. Again, though, it's REALLY easy to make false accusations if you never have to "prove" them. SOME people will believe you just because I'm the target, just as they'll believe you because Bush is the target of your other ( false ) accusations.
As for getting the truth, it is difficult. One needs to be able, first, to read or listen, and then ( this is the difficult part ) comprehend what has been read or heard. But the MOST difficult part is in knowing who to believe when you can't read, or haven't read, the original source document(s) for yourself.

Message edited by author 2005-10-25 18:42:49.

10/25/2005 06:33:34 PM · #467

Ginger, if there's no proof of any of these allegations, why do you believe them. If there is, why can't you post one, simple example that stands up to scrutiny?

And stop knocking your head against the wall. The bruises will heal, eventually. :)

edit: And, FWIW, Ron's posting history is impecable. Maybe if you read his posts with an open mind, you might learn a thing or two. :)

Message edited by author 2005-10-25 18:34:26.

10/25/2005 06:54:44 PM · #468

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Again, you happily miss the point.

Again with the "happy"? I'm actually frustrated and somewhat disgusted at the apparent disregard for simple logic and reading comprehension.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The Bush administration, not I, used this - and other - examples of severe beatings not qualifying as torture to buttress their argument. That the case law was not robust was THEIR problem, not mine.

The Justice Department, in issuing legal advice to the administration, cited case law to support their advice. If they had not used case law, or had even flaunted case law, you would be ranting about how Bush ignores legal precident in running the country.

Would I now, Scotty, laddie, now?

Originally posted by ScottK:

Your beef is with the court, not the administration.

No. My beef is with an administration that needed two new documents generated to JUSTIFY TORTURE. Torture? Oops - were we talking about frickin' torture?

Or did you think it was mere coincidence that these just happened to be drawn up when Bush left the World Court, set up prison camps, arrested thousands of (innocent) foreigners off the streets, set up secret military tribunals... even arrested at least one U.S. citizen on American soil and jailed him without council, or charge for more than 6 months?

Goodness sakes! These memos are known around the world as "The Torture Memos". They are notorious!

You and RonB seem to be the only two folks on the planet who do not recognize them for what they most clearly are - outrageous documents, and a very sad commentary on how far the U.S. has been degraded.

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Again, my point is that memo was generated to more narrowly define "torture", so that the despicable acts the Bush administration had already carried out would NOT QUALIFY as such.

And my point is that you misinterpret - or twist - documents which clearly say one thing to fit your agenda. The memo was not "generated to more narrowly define 'torture'", but to identify what their legal possition was.

And that would be ...Why, again? Why was there a need for "identification of a position" on torture?

Answer: Because they were going to use it, that's why!

Those memos are not really a declaration that says: "Torture of any stripe is wrong, and the U.S. will not use torture in any way shape or form.

What they ARE is a document(s) that says that everything nasty you can think of is not really torture, EXCEPT the worst possible horrible thing that is so disgusting that you can't even think of it - THAT is torture, and we would NEVER do that.

Originally posted by ScottK:

It was not done "so that the despicable acts the Bush administration had already carried out would NOT QUALIFY as such" because, at the very least, 1) these opinions were issued before the war in Iraq even started and these supposed acts were committed, and 2) as I proved above, you have the causal relationship backwards - the decision was made, and the ramifications were then analysed.

There was a little affair known as the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan that preceded Iraq? There was planning even before that.

Originally posted by ScottK:

Never mind that what you are terming as "despicable acts" still hasn't risen above the level of hearsay and inuendo. But I guess with a worldview that eliminates proof, all that's required is a hatred of Bush to accept them as gospel.

OHHHH BOYYYY. Here we go.

Interesting phrase you just used, there Scott.
" Hearsay and Innuendo"

RonB uses that phrase all the time. So do the official Republican Talking Point Memos!

Are you actually making the case here, at this late date, that there has not been documentation of a pattern of torture at military installations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba and in other countries?

Or that prisoners were not airlifted to other countries and tortured there, for us??

Are you actually saying that these things are merely "innuendo"???

How close a relative are you to RonB? Brother? Cousin?? :D :D

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
And the PROBLEM with that, is that any reasonable person KNOWS that what they are guilty of encouraging is, was, and always will be recognized as torture the world round.

And the PROBLEM with that is, that since you seem to ignore reason in supporting your arguement, I'm not sure that I accept that you're qualified to define what a "reasonable" person knows. I think that a "reasonable" person, making a "reasonable" argument, would be able to respond to Ron's request:

Yup. I'm just an idiot. No booklearnin, no sense, ignorant. And I can't possibly be reasonable - I disagree with you, after all! :D

10/25/2005 07:16:01 PM · #469

Originally posted by RonB:

[As for my posting history, I stand by all that I have posted - qualified, of course, to include those which I have later posted admitting that others were in error, were overly harsh, or were later shown to be issues on which I was incompletely or mis-informed. Yes, I do admit when evidence, or circumstance, show that I have been wrong.
In my posts, I try my best to separate fact from belief or opinion, but have always, to the best of my knowledge, provided evidence for every statement I have presented, whether as fact or as opinion, if challenged to do so. That's more than I can say for many others in these fora.
It is beyond reason to believe that you would be able to post excerpts of postings that I made where I was "dead wrong" and the hard evidence to prove it. Again, though, it's REALLY easy to make false accusations if you never have to "prove" them.

That's just it, RonB. Your positions are never wrong, unless someone "proves it". Of course, no proof source is ever good enough. It all gets put down to "innuendo." Or a biased press. Or a biased source. (Once I supplied Federal Documents, collected by a U.S. Senator. You rejected the documents as a proof source because the Senator was a Democrat.)

Or that Bush et al didn't know "at the time" that what they said, or did, was a falsehood. Or that they didn't say a falsehood out of deliberate malice.

I don't have to provide proof to you of this stuff, RonB.

=> Go back and look at the last year and a half of political threads. Look at your positions on the issues. You always defended Bush et al. Your positions have since been shown to be the wrong positions.

The problem - you believed their lies. I, and others here, have been trying to tell you this for a long time now - Bush and his cronies are liars. Big-time liars.

I've spent enough time knocking my head aginst the wall with two guys so evidently intellectually bankrupt that you fall back on the rhetorical slovenry of demanding proof, when any honest self-appraisal would lead you to the same conclusion.

Jeez, RonB. You are backing the wrong team!

And I think your brain is not allowing itself (you) to see clearly. I think, truly, that cognitive dissonance has got you but good. Too bad. ;(

Well, this has been an enormous waste of time, it seems.

I would like to apologize for my nastiness. I have treated you quite poorly here, and you don't deserve it. You are an infuriating putz, ( not necessarily a bad thing :D ), but not a bad person. You DO know how to push my buttons, and I am ashamed to have responded as rudely as I have over these months. Sorry.

Goodbye.

Message edited by author 2005-10-25 19:22:41.

MadMordegon

10/25/2005 08:54:10 PM · #470

RonB, when Rove is indicted for the CIA leak and has to step down, you should sign up to take his place. You are a master of bullshittery and partisan point taking and impenetrable loyalty to those who don't deserve it. I wonder if you would defend Bush for last weeks staged and scripted interview with troops in Iraq the administration tried to bill as "a genuine back and forth" before they realized they were caught on camera practicing the script. See the video here: Why is it the real news comes on a fake news show?

But back to the subject at hand, stop bullshit for 90 minutes and instead watch this PBS Frontline movie online for free; The Torture Question

I think it will make things pretty clear.

10/25/2005 09:39:59 PM · #471

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

1) ALL politicians "stage" and "script" interviews and photo ops. ( but that doesn't make it right if it is presented as "genuine" ).
2) I did a Google news search on Bush "genuine back and forth" and got zero hits. I did it without the news qualifier and got a few, but NONE relating to the interview. I know that this is a tough one, but could you provide a link to a single reliable news source that documents the administration saying that the interview was "genuine back and forth"?
3) If you can't, then I must assume that no one in the adminstration actually said that.
4) If no one in the administration actually said that, then it's just another political presentation by the President, just like a press conference or stump speech, and I see no problem with it.
BTW, on the topic of "staged" events, are you aware of the "staging" that took place when Clinton, walking alone in his "meditation", formed a cross out of rocks on the beach at Normandy? That was "staged" too. The rocks were strategically placed on the beach for him to "find" at just the right place. Like I said, all politicians do it.
5) As for whether it was "real news" or not, one could ask the same question of ANY politicians appearances - are they "real" news or policital events? Answer: Yes, they are.

Oh, and one more thing. Don't you think that the administration is smart enough to PROHIBIT photojouralists from being present while they are setting up a "staged" event, if they feared having that information exposed to the public? I do.

I tend to avoid watching videos on the internet that are longer than a couple of minutes. But I am open to having you summarize the pertinent points in a posting. It would be helpful, too, if you could include the sources that PBS quotes to back up their findings.

MadMordegon

10/25/2005 09:49:27 PM · #472

I wonâ��t summarize it; you need to SEE it for yourself. If you choose not to watch it then your choosing ignorance on this subject. This just aired last week.

And you also must not have watched the Daily Show clip I posted aswell which shows Whitehouse spokesperson Scott McClellan try to play that off as genuine. And they didnâ��t allow it, it was a satellite feed ABC picked up on. The Whitehouse intended to mislead the public.

*edit
Also the "well Clinton did such and such" is getting beyond old. Because someone does not like the sitting republican president does not mean he liked his democratic predecessor.

Please stop attempting to justify current administration actions by saying Clinton did it. It's stupid.

Message edited by author 2005-10-25 22:04:14.

10/25/2005 10:09:32 PM · #473

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

I wonâ��t summarize it; you need to SEE it for yourself. If you choose not to watch it then your choosing ignorance on this subject. This just aired last week.

And you also must not have watched the Daily Show clip I posted aswell which shows Whitehouse spokesperson Scott McClellan try to play that off as genuine.

*edit
Also the "well Clinton did such and such" is getting beyond old. Because someone does not like the sitting republican president does not mean he liked his democratic predecessor.

Please stop attempting to justify current administration actions by saying Clinton did it. It's stupid.

OK, your Madness, out of my deep and abiding respect for you, I watched the entire 7+ minutes of that wretched DailyShow clip, but guess what?
Not a single "genuine back and forth" in there. In fact, not even a single "genuine" in there. All Scott McClellan did was ask if the reporters thought that the responses from the soldiers were not "sincere" and "their own thoughts".
Fancy that. Another liberal accusation that cannot be substantiated.

As I explained, my inclusion of the Clinton staged event was only to support my claim that all politicians stage events that are political in nature but put forth by the media as news. I didn't have a problem with what Clinton did in Normandy. And I don't need to "justify" what the current administration did, since I don't see that they did anything wrong.

MadMordegon

10/25/2005 10:22:22 PM · #474

Yeah like I expected.

You didn't happen to catch McClellan saying at the end;

"I dont know if some are suggesting that what our troops are saying is not their own thoughts because it clearly was"

Now in technical political, Karl Rove style bullshittery, that may not be a lie. But itâ��s obvious to those of us with bullshit detectors that he was defending the notion that it was not scripted, which it clearly was.

I wonder how the troops feel about being used for this kind of publicity stunt. Especially today when the number of dead US soldiers has hit 2,000.