Quote :

"this is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM and i don't know why the hell you're refusing to give it any consideration "

Because it's not a problem. They will not talk. No matter what you offer them. They are millionaires who chose to live in caves so that they can blow up shit in various parts of the world. (Don't even fucking pretend they would not be able to get legalized somewhere in Quatar if they wanted a life of a quiet resident of Beverly Hills.) You're a stereotypical yankee: closedminded and unable to realize people don't think they way you do and a house in Cary with a backyard isn't their dream. I mean, Saddam didn't talk, and he's not even a religious fanatic. Your "problem" is a non-issue.

11/7/2005 8:22:52 PM

low-level detainees WOULD talk

11/7/2005 8:42:35 PM

where is the definition of POW altered?

11/7/2005 8:59:24 PM

Quote :

"Why have none of the senators and nobody from the White House even MENTIONED this fact to support their opposition? I haven't seen mention of it anywhere else and I would THINK that, especially since they're grasping at straws already, they would go for any additional reasoning they could find to oppose the ban."

I don't expect you to answer it, but I thought I'd say it again just for fun.

11/7/2005 9:01:44 PM

they have mentioned it. how do you think i heard about it?

11/7/2005 9:40:57 PM

where is the definition of POW altered?

11/7/2005 10:35:00 PM

PLEASE. CAN ONE PERSON SHOW ME AN ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL CONFIRMING WHAT EXCORCIATOR IS SAYING.

ANYBODY.

11/8/2005 1:01:16 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1287118&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Quote :

"Hagel: Torture Exemption Would Be Mistake By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL Associated Press WASHINGTON Nov 6, 2005 — A leading Republican senator said Sunday that the Bush administration is making "a terrible mistake" in opposing a congressional ban on torture and other inhuman treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody. Sen. Chuck Hagel, considered a potential presidential candidate in 2008, said many Republican senators support the ban proposed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. The ban was approved by a 90-9 vote last month in the Senate and added to a defense spending bill. The White House has threatened a veto, but the fate of the proposal depends on House-Senate negotiations that will reconcile different versions of the spending measure. The House's does not include the ban. Vice President Dick Cheney has lobbied Republican senators to allow an exemption for those held by the CIA if preventing an attack is at stake. "I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture," Hagel, R-Neb., said on "This Week" on ABC. "Why in the world they're doing that, I don't know." [...] Mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and allegations of mistreatment at the U.S.-run camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have drawn withering criticism from around the world. Human rights organizations also contend that the United States sends detainees to countries that it knows will use torture to try to extract intelligence information. "

Oh, and we NEVER "tortured" anybody at Abu Ghraib either (psst...those were just "enhanced interrogation techniques"). And forget that Cheney is leading the fight to create an exemption for the CIA from a torture ban. We still don't support torture. And we don't torture. Sure, it sounds Orwellian and like a bold-faced lie. But just believe the guvmint leaders. They always tell the truth.

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 8:22 AM. Reason : 1]

11/8/2005 8:21:11 AM

yea, only problem is that the orwellian double-speak is coming from the McCain camp where torture also includes playing "good cop bad cop" and offering plea deals

11/8/2005 8:30:54 AM

Quote :

"where is the definition of POW altered? "

its not. In Appendix J, a POW is clearly defined....exactly as it is in the Geneva convention. Then the applicable sections clearly state that they are in reference to "prisoners of war" as defined earlier in the document.

This legislation will not "classify Zarqawi/Osama/Kahlid as a POW" as Excoriator has been mislead to believe. They do not fit the standard criteria of a POW, therefore the coercion clause would not apply in that situation.

Just look through the rest of the document. "PROHIBITION OF COERCION" is not mentioned anywhere else, other then in the APPENDIX that deals strictly with POWs.

11/8/2005 8:35:00 AM

exactly my point

excoriator is just too stubborn to admit he is wrong.

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 10:12 AM. Reason : ]

11/8/2005 10:10:59 AM

Torture tickles!

11/9/2005 10:20:35 AM

FOR REAL

11/9/2005 8:33:19 PM

^is that real?

11/9/2005 8:34:34 PM

As far as I can tell, yes.

It's off of Wonkette.

11/9/2005 8:45:24 PM

Quote :

" Indeed, enough fuss: Let's just get on with the torturing already! Oh, uhm. I mean: What torture?"

ahhah

11/9/2005 9:50:15 PM

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111305Z.shtml

Quote :

"'We Do Not Torture' and Other Funny Stories By Frank Rich The New York Times Sunday 13 November 2005 If it weren't tragic it would be a New Yorker cartoon. The president of the United States, in the final stop of his forlorn Latin America tour last week, told the world, "We do not torture." Even as he spoke, the administration's flagrant embrace of torture was as hard to escape as publicity for Anderson Cooper. The vice president, not satisfied that the C.I.A. had already been implicated in four detainee deaths, was busy lobbying Congress to give the agency a green light to commit torture in the future. Dana Priest of The Washington Post, having first uncovered secret C.I.A. prisons two years ago, was uncovering new "black sites" in Eastern Europe, where ghost detainees are subjected to unknown interrogation methods redolent of the region's Stalinist past. Before heading south, Mr. Bush had been doing his own bit for torture by threatening to cast the first veto of his presidency if Congress didn't scrap a spending bill amendment, written by John McCain and passed 90 to 9 by the Senate, banning the "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of prisoners. So when you watch the president stand there with a straight face and say, "We do not torture" - a full year and a half after the first photos from Abu Ghraib - you have to wonder how we arrived at this ludicrous moment. The answer is not complicated. When people in power get away with telling bigger and bigger lies, they naturally think they can keep getting away with it."

11/14/2005 10:27:00 AM

Quote :

"In an important clarification of President George W. Bush's earlier statement, a top White House official refused to unequivocally rule out the use of torture, arguing the US administration was duty-bound to protect Americans from terrorist attack. The comment, by US national security adviser Stephen Hadley, came amid heated national debate about whether the CIA and other US intelligence agencies should be authorized to use what is being referred to as "enhanced interrogation techniques" to extract from terror suspects information that may help prevent future assaults. The US Senate voted 90-9 early last month to attach an amendment authored by Republican Senator John McCain to a defense spending bill that would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of detainees in US custody. But the White House has threatened to veto the measure and has lobbied senators to have the language removed or modified to allow an exemption for the Central Intelligence Agency. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051113/pl_afp/usattackstorture&printer=1;_ylt=AsIjtDJ9dxNUclwm9hLKCJKtOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-


National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, thinking hard about what the latest U.S. policy on torture is. (AFP/File/Paul J. Richards)

11/14/2005 10:27:02 AM

Quote :

"In an important clarification of President George W. Bush's earlier statement, a top White House official refused to unequivocally rule out the use of torture, arguing the US administration was duty-bound to protect Americans from terrorist attack. "

That's a "clarification" to Bush's statement that we don't torture? Saying that we may, in fact, use torture? LOL. What a complete joke.

[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 10:30 AM. Reason : 1]

11/14/2005 10:29:37 AM

wouldn't it be TREMENDOUS if bush's FIRST VETO is to ALLOW TORTURE

oh man

because

its not like he didn't JUST SAY "we do not torture"

11/14/2005 10:29:55 AM

2 questions:

1. Is "information" obtained via torture really reliable? I mean, wouldn't someone who's being tortured tell you ANYTHING?

2. Is a government that would (admittedly) torture people reliable? If they will torture people, would they LIE about the "information" obtained via torture? Isn't lying kind of tame compared to torturing people?

11/14/2005 12:39:57 PM

If you believe the detainees are animals, then Bush's statement is true.

11/14/2005 2:44:13 PM

Here's how they say they don't torture. They re-define what "torture" is.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-21T054045Z_01_RID120310_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-CIA-TORTURE.xml&archived=False

Quote :

"CIA "unique" methods not torture: director Mon Nov 21, 2005 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - CIA interrogators use "unique" methods to obtain "vital" information from prisoners, but strictly obey laws against torture, CIA Director Porter Goss said in an interview published on Monday. "This agency does not do torture. Torture does not work," Goss said in an interview with USA Today. "We use lawful capabilities to collect vital information and we do it in a variety of unique and innovative ways, all of which are legal and none of which are torture," Goss told the newspaper. Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, has proposed legislation outlawing torture or cruel and inhumane treatment of U.S. prisoners. Vice President Dick Cheney has been working in Congress to exempt the CIA from such a formal ban. Goss told USA Today that the CIA is neutral on the McCain legislation. But the newspaper said Goss made clear techniques that would be restricted under McCain's proposal have yielded valuable intelligence. "There is a huge amount of misinformation swirling about on the subject of detainees. That would include alleged activities of this agency," Goss said. The newspaper said Goss declined to describe interrogation methods exclusive to the CIA during an interview on Friday at the agency's headquarters in Langley, Virginia."

See, there not going to tell us what these "unique" methods of "enhanced interrogation" are. But there not "torture." Just trust the government.

11/22/2005 8:57:39 AM

Somebody in the press gaggle today asked Bush about the whole torture thing again and Bush was kind of rambling about different things, and the reporter basically interrupted and said something like "Can you just tell us in plain 'Texas talk' that America does not torture people?" And Bush said something like "Americans do not, anywhere in the world, torture anybody."

So there's that.

1/26/2006 11:09:16 AM

^ Well, I'm convinced.

1/26/2006 11:29:36 AM

IT'S TEXAS TALK, VIPER.

AIN'T NO DENYIN' IT.

1/26/2006 11:35:54 AM

They shoot vipers in Texas.

1/26/2006 11:42:10 AM

1/26/2006 11:45:51 AM

Any laws about shooting people are probably really old and therefore invalid.

1/26/2006 11:48:22 AM

I don't know how on Earth we can expect the militant Islamists to moderate when we fuel the flames with shit like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11061831/

1/27/2006 8:17:21 PM

That's some crap.

Yet no one will care, so it will continue.

1/27/2006 8:37:21 PM

Quote :

"The U.S. Army in Iraq has at least twice seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of “leveraging” their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show. In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family’s door telling him “to come get his wife."

Hey, if it works for loan sharks....

Yeah, this is despicable.

1/27/2006 8:40:16 PM