What will the US military NOT do?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Can any US citizen tell the world at what point the US military would stop providing support for illegal activity by its commanding officer or other US government bodies such as the CIA

It has provided logistical support for torture such as in: -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032803656.html

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2607629.stm

Is there any limit beyond which the US military will not go and on what basis should this support not be deemed to aid and abett crimes against humanity?

[BPSCG]

Is there any limit beyond which the US military will not go ...?I think they would probably not dry-hump your cocker spaniel while you were watching.

[TragicMonkey]

The US military will do anything for love, but it won't do that. No, it won't do that.

[E.J.Armstrong]

I think they would probably not dry-hump your cocker spaniel while you were watching.
Shall I take that as a 'nothing' then?

[fagin]

Sweeping generalisations and oversimplification

[E.J.Armstrong]

The US military will do anything for love, but it won't do that. No, it won't do that.

Good one.

If I understand Meat, he wouldn't cheat.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Sweeping generalisations and oversimplification

What specific generalisations and oversimplification are you referring to and why are they generalisations and oversimplifications? I am not sure in what way the Washington post and the BBC are wrong?

[WildCat]

If I understand Meat, he wouldn't cheat.
No he won't, but he will be praying for the end of time. Because if he has to spend another minute with you he doesn't think that he can really survive.

[E.J.Armstrong]

No he won't, but he will be praying for the end of time. Because if he has to spend another minute with you he doesn't think that he can really survive.

Am I annoying you in some as yet unexplained way Wildcat?

[JoeEllison]

Is there any limit beyond which the US military will not go and on what basis should this support not be deemed to aid and abett crimes against humanity?

Since no one else is interested in giving a serious answer:

Part of the problem is that these sorts of things get tangled up in chain-of-command issues, and hidden in larger operational orders. If an Army commander provides a hanger for CIA agents to torture a prisoner, I doubt it was posed to him in those terms. He probably got a piece of paper as part of setting up his command that included providing a certain amount of space for "unspecified CIA operations."

[fagin]

What specific generalisations and oversimplification are you referring to and why are they generalisations and oversimplifications? I am not sure in what way the Washington post and the BBC are wrong?
You seem to think that every US citizen is responsible, and even able to speak for the military. That is generalising. Many are against what goes on, some are for, the majority probably couldn't give a continental, as long as they are nt affected directly, like the majority of people everywhere.
Why do you hate Germans so much?

[fagin]

Sorry to answer your question - yours.

[mrbaracuda]

Why do you hate Germans so much?

Yea, why E.J.Armstrong, why do you hate us so much? :(:(:(

[plumjam]

Win.

[Dorian Gray]

Two out of three ain't bad.

[Yalius]

I'd lie for the US military, and that's the truth.


They take wasted youths, put them through boot camp like a bat out of hell, and when they're done, you've throw them overseas out of the frying pan and into the fire. Send them back into hell, they come back home, and there's not a dry eye in the house. Amnesty is granted to the enemy, and we say goodbye to the ones who are up where angels sing.







(Talk about taking a running gag and beating it with a stick)

[The Atheist]

Is there any limit beyond which the US military will not go and on what basis should this support not be deemed to aid and abett crimes against humanity?

I'm not a US citizen by any means, coming from the most anti-US country (demonstrably and legislatively) in the First World/Western Alliance, but I can answer your question with a resounding "No".

In evidence, I offer SDI and the present arsenal of nuclear weapons. It has been clear for half a century that USA has both the capability and desire (edited to: "willingness" - even Grammar Tyrant make poor editors, occasionally) - if needed - to rid the world of the human race.

If there's any greater sin against humanity than that, anyone is free to get back to me.

Not really along the lines of what you asked, but it's relevant in my terms.

Why are you asking US citizens? Shouldn't you be asking the government?

If you're looking to accuse the majority of US citizens with mass stupidity, I think most people here would agree with you - it is, after all, a nation of 90% religious faith, which gives them a monstrous head start.

Since no one else is interested in giving a serious answer:

Part of the problem is that these sorts of things get tangled up in chain-of-command issues, and hidden in larger operational orders. If an Army commander provides a hanger for CIA agents to torture a prisoner, I doubt it was posed to him in those terms. He probably got a piece of paper as part of setting up his command that included providing a certain amount of space for "unspecified CIA operations."

That answers the specific question pretty well. As I understand it, the CIA is an intelligence agency and as such, is not big on advertising what it's doing. The army may well "know" what's going on, but to refuse an order to assist them could almost be classed as a refusal to follow orders in action, which I would assume carries pretty stiff penalties.

Win.

Who for?

You seem to think that every US citizen is responsible, and even able to speak for the military. That is generalising. Many are against what goes on, some are for, the majority probably couldn't give a continental, as long as they are nt affected directly, like the majority of people everywhere.

Pity about the last sentence; your answer was pretty coherent until then.

I haven't seen public responsibility mentioned, and I imagine the question's being asked as most people here are politically aware. The question is fair and you're jumping to conclusions which may or may not be right.

The cliched response of "Why do you hate us" is neither smart nor classy.

[Region Rat]

In evidence, I offer SDI and the present arsenal of nuclear weapons. It has been clear for half a century that USA has both the capability and desire - if needed - to rid the world of the human race.

If there's any greater sin against humanity than that, anyone is free to get back to me.

So this is evidence that the USA is the worst thing going. I'm curious. It may be clear that the USA has the capability to rid the world of the human race, but I don't recall anyone in power in the USA saying they desired to do so. Do you have any quotes?

Now, if you are correct, and for 50 years, unbeknownst to me, a parade of American Presidents (well, maybe except for Jimmy Carter) has stated that they had the desire to rid the world of humanity, I would say that they have also shown great restraint in not doing so. Would that not show they had some virtue in their hearts?

Next, I'm confused on the sin you are speaking of, and why a person with your handle would use that term. Leaving aside the use of the word sin and the religious connotations, I would agree that ridding the world of humanity ranks right up there at the top of the list of right nasty things to do, but since that has not happened, why have you applied it to the USA? Seems somewhat strawmannish.

Last, are you of the mind that since the USA (by this I mean USA Presidents, since they have the finger on the button) has the means and, in your opinion, desire to rid the world of humanity, the sin is that of lusting in their heart to commit sin, even if they choose not to act on the desire? (Jimmy Carter again- how odd).
:confused:

[The Atheist]

Sorry, my poor wording, edited as above. I have to race off but will come back and answer the rest later.

[WildCat]

Am I annoying you in some as yet unexplained way Wildcat?
Not at all E.J., it was just more Meat Loaf lyrics... see Paradise By The Dashboard Lights.



But if you have to explain the joke... :(

[gtc]

I fully support this thread. In fact I think I saw something similar in the Daily Mail once.

I believe the headline was:

'Teenagers who play their stereos too loud: Should they be locked up before they murder someone?'.

Why do I suspect that E.J. Armstrong will be unable to understand the crimes against logic that he is committing in this thread?

[Region Rat]

Sorry, my poor wording, edited as above. I have to race off but will come back and answer the rest later.

Uh oh, I didn't realize who I was 'correcting'. I guess I should read the fine print. Wouldn't want to get sent to the camp for my impudence. :)

[Cylinder]

I think they would probably not dry-hump your cocker spaniel while you were watching.

Do you mean before of after the Airman's Club closes?

[The Atheist]

Next, I'm confused on the sin you are speaking of, and why a person with your handle would use that term.

Now, that word, I do use deliberately. The "desire" was a shocking attempt at being a smart-arse - it was meant to convey a "desire to retaliate, pre-emptively, if necessary" but backfired, so I edited it as noted to "willingness" which makes a lot more sense.

Leaving aside the use of the word sin and the religious connotations, I would agree that ridding the world of humanity ranks right up there at the top of the list of right nasty things to do, but since that has not happened, why have you applied it to the USA? Seems somewhat strawmannish.

Because since the demise of the Cold War, I've seen no serious attempts to rectify the situation by trying to get rid of the ability to destroy the planet. If anything, SDI makes it all the more sinful, retaining the ability to waste everyone else while being protected from the consequences. That's having one's cake and eating it on a planetary scale.

Hopefully, all is now clear. My apologies for the confusion. Editing in haste has its downside.

Uh oh, I didn't realize who I was 'correcting'. I guess I should read the fine print. Wouldn't want to get sent to the camp for my impudence. :)

No; criticism is permitted as long as you're right - as you were. It's people like brodski and Foolmewunz who are beyond redemption that need to be concerned.

[fagin]

Pity about the last sentence; your answer was pretty coherent until then.

I haven't seen public responsibility mentioned, and I imagine the question's being asked as most people here are politically aware. The question is fair and you're jumping to conclusions which may or may not be right.

The cliched response of "Why do you hate us" is neither smart nor classy.

Balls his original sentence was:
"Can any US citizen tell the world at what point the US military would stop providing support for illegal activity by its commanding officer or other US government bodies such as the CIA"

Not directed at us intellekshualls* on the forum as far as I can see.

But my apologies firstly for my grammar, but I am at work and don't have much time, secondly for my attempt at humour - you are obviously a humour tyrant as well, but I do not see how such a statement can be taken seriously.

* just in case - I know.

[Rob Lister]

Can any US citizen tell the world at what point the US military would stop providing support for illegal activity by its commanding officer or other US government bodies such as the CIA


Getting past the rhetoric-ridden presumption of illegality, that's a hard question to answer because the US Military is not a single entity capable of either providing or refusing to provide support; individuals within the military will, to varying degrees, refuse illegal orders should they arise. Perhaps if you phrased it differently it might be easier to answer, such as, 'At what point would the SecDef (or any other entity you might select) stop following the orders of the CinC?' I suspect the answer then would be when said entity thinks the ordered actions are 1) actually illegal according to U.S. law and 2) personal culpability will ensue. Of course, that depends on the entity but I suspect that's a good 'average' response by most.

[Donal]

What will the US military NOT do?

For a Klondike bar.


Geez, I let that sit around for more than a week. You're getting slow, people.

Since no one else is interested in giving a serious answer:


Let's be honest. It wasn't that serious a question. Just another chance to bash the US.

[bobdroege7]

Would you rather be an enemy (of the USA) combatant captured by the US military, or an American military person captured by the enemies of the US?

[E.J.Armstrong]

You seem to think that every US citizen is responsible, and even able to speak for the military. That is generalising. Many are against what goes on, some are for, the majority probably couldn't give a continental, as long as they are nt affected directly, like the majority of people everywhere.
Why do you hate Germans so much?


If the Palestinian people are responsible for electing terrorists then the citizens of the USA are responsible for electing torturers.

Why are you anti-european?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Since no one else is interested in giving a serious answer:

Part of the problem is that these sorts of things get tangled up in chain-of-command issues, and hidden in larger operational orders. If an Army commander provides a hanger for CIA agents to torture a prisoner, I doubt it was posed to him in those terms. He probably got a piece of paper as part of setting up his command that included providing a certain amount of space for "unspecified CIA operations."

I could accept that if I believed that they really didn't know. The widely publicised support for torture espoused by Bush, the torturing of the CIA and the extensive abuse of human rights at the Guantanamo concentration camp and Baghram etc suggests otherwise. A commander has a duty to know what goes on in the areas under his/her command.

Let's also face it - they are all USA organisations. Trying to claim as a military commander that you have a three monkey approach to abuses of human rights on your watch and in your facilities but undefined 'others' just won't wash. The US military forced villagers from villages adjacent to parade by the dead saying that they must have been aware of what was going on.

The US military are aiding and abetting torture and claiming 'I was only following orders' no longer washes in the world, mush as they try to distance themselves from torture.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Yea, why E.J.Armstrong, why do you hate us so much? :(:(:(

Why do you hate evidence so much?

[BPSCG]

Congratulations on your 2,000th post, E.J.!

Still waiting for a coherent one. :goat

[Careyp74]

I think they would probably not dry-hump your cocker spaniel while you were watching.

However, if they deemed the dry humping of his dog necessary, I am sure they will find sufficient evidence as to why it must be done, and how it does not violate anyones rights.

[E.J.Armstrong]

I'm not a US citizen by any means, coming from the most anti-US country (demonstrably and legislatively) in the First World/Western Alliance, but I can answer your question with a resounding "No".

In evidence, I offer SDI and the present arsenal of nuclear weapons. It has been clear for half a century that USA has both the capability and desire (edited to: "willingness" - even Grammar Tyrant make poor editors, occasionally) - if needed - to rid the world of the human race.

If there's any greater sin against humanity than that, anyone is free to get back to me.

Not really along the lines of what you asked, but it's relevant in my terms.

Why are you asking US citizens? Shouldn't you be asking the government?

If you're looking to accuse the majority of US citizens with mass stupidity, I think most people here would agree with you - it is, after all, a nation of 90% religious faith, which gives them a monstrous head start. I am really trying to understand why the torturers are being allowed to get away. Maybe I've received the answer. I really hope I haven't.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Not at all E.J., it was just more Meat Loaf lyrics... see Paradise By The Dashboard Lights.



But if you have to explain the joke... :(

What joke?

[E.J.Armstrong]

I fully support this thread. In fact I think I saw something similar in the Daily Mail once.

I believe the headline was:

'Teenagers who play their stereos too loud: Should they be locked up before they murder someone?'.

Why do I suspect that E.J. Armstrong will be unable to understand the crimes against logic that he is committing in this thread?

Why does your post contain no evidence to support it?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Getting past the rhetoric-ridden presumption of illegality, that's a hard question to answer because the US Military is not a single entity capable of either providing or refusing to provide support; individuals within the military will, to varying degrees, refuse illegal orders should they arise. Perhaps if you phrased it differently it might be easier to answer, such as, 'At what point would the SecDef (or any other entity you might select) stop following the orders of the CinC?' I suspect the answer then would be when said entity thinks the ordered actions are 1) actually illegal according to U.S. law and 2) personal culpability will ensue. Of course, that depends on the entity but I suspect that's a good 'average' response by most.

Water torture is defined by international law to be illegal and was not so long ago defined as torture worthy of a court martial by the US military hence the use of the word in my post. What truly puzzles me is that the US seems to think it can redefine what it previously thought was indefensible. (see - 'Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War.[36] On January 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial photograph of two U.S soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier participating in the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang.photo[37] The article described the practice as "fairly common."[37] The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was discharged from the army.[36][38]' from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding)

It appears that when water torture was practised by US soldiers it was an offense worthy of a court martial but not now. How can the US military now provide logistical support for an arm of the US government now torturing people? I really am wanting to know if there are any limits to this type of tacit support for torture.

Many of the answers indicate that people simply don't care. You may be the most representative.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Congratulations on your 2,000th post, E.J.!

Still waiting for a coherent one. :goat

I am in thrall to your MO.

[BPSCG]

I am in thrall to your MO.Me too! :mdance:

[LTC8K6]

Why doesn't the rest of the world take care of it's problems so the US doesn't have to?

If they'd do the work themselves, we wouldn't have to waterboard people.

Sheesh!

[bigred]

I think they would probably not dry-hump your cocker spaniel while you were watching.
I was going to object until you added the "while you were watching" caveat.


The US military will do anything for love, but it won't do that. No, it won't do that.
You must be in the military because exposing anyone to Meatloaf has got to be considered torture. Terrorist bastage.

[BPSCG]

I think they would probably not dry-hump your cocker spaniel while you were watching.
I was going to object until you added the "while you were watching" caveat. Well, I had to, if I was going to be fair. I've never seen the U.S. military dry-hump a cocker spaniel.

The only possible conclusion is that they do it while nobody's watching. HAR!

[E.J.Armstrong]

Well, I had to, if I was going to be fair. I've never seen the U.S. military dry-hump a cocker spaniel.

The only possible conclusion is that they do it while nobody's watching. HAR!

Au contraire. It seems someone was watching Us torturers at work.

'US Vets Testify to Torture of Detainees
by Aaron Glantz'

'He spoke in detail about one prisoner, a diabetic Iraqi who was delirious and was not allowed to take insulin for days. Duffy said he asked his superiors if he could transfer the man to the hospital for treatment, but his request was denied.

His captain said he "could not transfer the detainee and that [the man] could drink water," Duffy said. "She also said he probably wouldn't die but that it wouldn't matter anyway."

A few days later, Duffy said, the man died from lack of care.'

from http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=12544

I bet he was laughing like a 'decent' man when he died.

[BPSCG]

Au contraire. It seems someone was watching Us torturers at work.

'US Vets Testify to Torture of Detainees
by Aaron Glantz'Testified.

Under oath where he could be prosecuted for perjury if he was lying? Uh, no.

Before Congress?
Nope.

Before a group of "Winter Soldiers"? dingdingdingdingdingdingding...

Perhaps he's looking to run for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts someday, just like another "Winter Soldier" did after testifying to atrocities he claimed to have seen committed in Vietnam by everyone except himself.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Testified.

Under oath where he could be prosecuted for perjury if he was lying? Uh, no.

Before Congress?
Nope.

Before a group of "Winter Soldiers"? dingdingdingdingdingdingding...

Perhaps he's looking to run for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts someday, just like another "Winter Soldier" did after testifying to atrocities he claimed to have seen committed in Vietnam by everyone except himself.

Now how did I know you, as a decent' person would imply he was a liar? No - it' wasn't good luck. It's what 'decent' people do.

See also: -

'US President George Bush says he has vetoed legislation that would stop the CIA using interrogation methods such as simulated drowning or "water-boarding".
He said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, as it took "away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror".

The president said the CIA needed "specialised interrogation procedures" that the military did not.

Water-boarding is condemned as torture by rights groups and many governments.'
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7285290.stm

Torturers of the world unite under Bush, leader of the USA - like all 'decent' people. Slogan 'Support your neighbourhood torturer - you know it makes sense.'

[IchabodPlain]

'US President George Bush says he has vetoed legislation that would stop the CIA using interrogation methods such as simulated drowning or "water-boarding".
He said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, as it took "away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror".

Waterboarding was effectively made illegal after passage of the DTA in 2005. The DTA bans not only torture (as specified Geneva Conventions and Convention Against Torture), but also any cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.



Torturers of the world unite under Bush, leader of the USA - like all 'decent' people. Slogan 'Support your neighbourhood torturer - you know it makes sense.'

How childish.

[BPSCG]

Now how did I know you, as a decent' person would imply he was a liar? No - it' wasn't good luck. It's what 'decent' people do.

See also: -Typical E.J. - when one accusation doesn't pan out, fling another one. Eventually something'll stick...

[BPSCG]

Waterboarding was effectively made illegal after passage of the DTA in 2005. The DTA bans not only torture (as specified Geneva Conventions and Convention Against Torture), but also any cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Stop trying to confuse E.J. with the facts. He has testimony.

[bigred]

Well, I had to, if I was going to be fair. I've never seen the U.S. military dry-hump a cocker spaniel. Me either, but then again I never served in the Army.

Au contraire. And you say you're not French. Yeah right.

Stop trying to confuse E.J. with the facts. He has testimony.And from http://www.antiwar.com, which we all know is an objective reliable source!

[Aardvark422]

I'm not sure about the cocker spaniel humping, but from personal experience, the US Military will not pick its clothes up off the floor, put its dirty dishes in the dishwasher, and it never brings me flowers. Five years of marriage, would it kill the US Military to bring home some flowers?? :mad:

[Darth Rotor]

Can any US citizen tell the world at what point the US military would stop providing support for illegal activity by its commanding officer or other US government bodies such as the CIA

It has provided logistical support for torture such as in: -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032803656.html

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2607629.stm

Is there any limit beyond which the US military will not go and on what basis should this support not be deemed to aid and abett crimes against humanity?
Hi: I am a US citizen. I can tell the world that the US will not nuke the UK. Now and again when you post your high dudgeon extracts, I wonder if that position ought to be reconsidered. If confused minds that regurgitate this pap is what is being bred in the UK, the Apocalypse cannot be too far from arriving. Maybe the nukes would be a mercy killing.

Luckily, as long as there is beer, there is hope.

Given how much I like Real Ale, I'll continue to vote against any American who proposes that the US nuke the UK.

By the way, don't anyone ever vote for me for president. Not even a write in.

You don't want me near the red button.

(Though the Brits would be safe enough. In vino veritas, but
In cerevisia salvatio*. ) See above for why.

DR

(*In beer, salvation. I am not the best at Latin.)

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not sure about the cocker spaniel humping, but from personal experience, the US Military will not pick its clothes up off the floor, put its dirty dishes in the dishwasher, and it never brings me flowers. Five years of marriage, would it kill the US Military to bring home some flowers?? :mad:
You weren't married to me.

I fold my own laundry, thanks so much, frequently wash the whole household's laundry, and know more than I care to about permanent press, gentle cycles, Woolite, drip dry, hand wash, and when not to use bleach.

Handy survival skills, on the other hand, when one wants to wear clean clothes.

DR

[BPSCG]

Given how much I like Real Ale, I'll continue to vote against any American who proposes that the US nuke the UK.I move that the U.S. not nuke the U.K., unless we have a really, really good reason, like Prince Charles deciding to relocate here.

Please don't vote for me either because I'm a U.S. government employee and I'm not allowed to run for public office. If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.

[gtc]

Well I told you you that you wouldn't be able to understand why your question is illogical to the point of absurdity. Its true that I didn't provide any evidence but, then, I knew you would provide it for me:

Why does your post contain no evidence to support it?

And there we have it.

I'll make it even easier for you.

You have broken a law at least once in your life (be it jay-walking, illegally downloading music or whatever)*. Given this, would it make sense for me to then ask: 'Where will E.J. Armstrong stop?' Or would that simply be a baseless and absurd smear?

*Obviously I can't prove that you have broken a law, but I would bet money that everyone has broken some law at some stage in their life.

[bigred]

Hi: I am a US citizen. I can tell the world that the US will not nuke the UK. Now and again when you post your high dudgeon extracts, I wonder if that position ought to be reconsidered. If confused minds that regurgitate this pap is what is being bred in the UK, the Apocalypse cannot be too far from arriving. Maybe the nukes would be a mercy killing. Maybe so, but first things first. The Middle East, remember? Calif also high on the list.

You don't want me near the red button. I think maybe I do.

[BPSCG]

You don't want me near the red button.

I think maybe I do.Be careful what you wish for. Especially after he's knocked back a few brews on Friday night.

[bigred]

pff - I'll buy the beer.

[BPSCG]

Oh. Well, in that case, can I come, too?

[bigred]

Only if you promise to push big red buttons I (or DR) shove in front of you.

[BPSCG]

Works for me. There may be things the U.S. military won't do, but I'm not in the service.

[bigred]

Works for me. There may be things the U.S. military won't do, :confused: No there aren't. Haven't you been paying attention?

but I'm not in the service.Nevertheless, feel free to waterboard any cocker spaniels you deem appropriate to get the proper reaction.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Waterboarding was effectively made illegal after passage of the DTA in 2005. The DTA bans not only torture (as specified Geneva Conventions and Convention Against Torture), but also any cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Unfortunately Bush vetoed the bill that would have made waterboarding illegal. Waterboarding is clearly defined as torture under international law.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Typical E.J. - when one accusation doesn't pan out, fling another one. Eventually something'll stick...

You implied he was a liar without evidence.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Stop trying to confuse E.J. with the facts. He has testimony.
I have the actions of your president and commander in chief. Facts seem to bother you. It seems even the New York Times is wrong as well.

'Mr. Bush vetoed a bill that would have explicitly prohibited the agency from using interrogation methods like waterboarding, a technique in which restrained prisoners are threatened with drowning and that has been the subject of intense criticism at home and abroad. Many such techniques are prohibited by the military and law enforcement agencies.'

from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/washington/09policy.html

International law is quite clear that water torture is in fact torture. Your president and commander in chief and your government are torturers.

[E.J.Armstrong]

And you say you're not French. Yeah right.



Strangely, unlike you, some people believe that knowing a bit of a foreign language is a matter of education.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Hi: I am a US citizen. I can tell the world that the US will not nuke the UK. Now and again when you post your high dudgeon extracts, I wonder if that position ought to be reconsidered. If confused minds that regurgitate this pap is what is being bred in the UK, the Apocalypse cannot be too far from arriving. Maybe the nukes would be a mercy killing.

Luckily, as long as there is beer, there is hope.

Given how much I like Real Ale, I'll continue to vote against any American who proposes that the US nuke the UK.

By the way, don't anyone ever vote for me for president. Not even a write in.

You don't want me near the red button.

(Though the Brits would be safe enough. In vino veritas, but
In cerevisia salvatio*. ) See above for why.

DR

(*In beer, salvation. I am not the best at Latin.)

Careful. Big Red will call you a Roman for knowing some words of the language. He apparently doesn't understand that people can be educated - even in dead languages. Maybe he ran quam celerime from the lessons.

I take it than that the US military will simply sit back and supply services to all the torturers Bush, Cheney and Rice send their way. Uber sad for decency.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Well I told you you that you wouldn't be able to understand why your question is illogical to the point of absurdity. Its true that I didn't provide any evidence but, then, I knew you would provide it for me:



And there we have it.

I'll make it even easier for you.

You have broken a law at least once in your life (be it jay-walking, illegally downloading music or whatever)*. Given this, would it make sense for me to then ask: 'Where will E.J. Armstrong stop?' Or would that simply be a baseless and absurd smear?

*Obviously I can't prove that you have broken a law, but I would bet money that everyone has broken some law at some stage in their life.

Sorry but I haven't tortured anyone like your President and commander in chief.

'..."The president's veto sends a message to the world that despite Congress' actions, our country will continue to engage in this inhumane and heinous conduct when we should be affirming unequivocally and in one voice that torture and abuse will stop and never happen again. No one is above the rule of law, including the president. Congress should hold firm and persist in trying to get an anti-torture bill signed into law."...'

From http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34389prs20080308.html

Silly people.

[IchabodPlain]

Unfortunately Bush vetoed the bill that would have made waterboarding illegal. Waterboarding is clearly defined as torture under international law.

You notice I used the word "effectively". Waterboarding has not been used since the passage of the DTA in 2005, for the reasons I have already listed. The bill Bush vetoed banned all techniques not already in the Army Field manual (which there is a separate thread in Politics (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108387) if you wish to discuss it). I also do believe, though feel free to quote otherwise, that Bush has stated that if a bill came to his desk that solely made waterboarding illegal, he would sign it.

But again, as I have stated, the DTA effectively outlawed torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions and Convention Against Torture) as well as cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment.

[RandFan]

I take it than that the US military will simply sit back and supply services to all the torturers Bush, Cheney and Rice send their way. Uber sad for decency. He's a torturer, she's a torturer, they're all torturers. It's too damn bad Bush, Cheney and Rice aren't Palestinian. Then E.J. would like them and apologize for them.

[IchabodPlain]

Clarification, for the benefit of EJ:

SEC. 1003. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

(a) In General- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(b) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

(c) Limitation on Supersedure- The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.

(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined- In this section, the term 'cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.


http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

Section 327 prohibits the use of any interrogation
treatment or technique not authorized by the United States Army
Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations (``U.S.
Army Field Manual'') against any individual in the custody or
effective control of any element of the Intelligence Community.
This limitation on interrogation conducted by Intelligence
Community personnel is similar to the limitation on
interrogation conducted by Department of Defense personnel in
Section 1002(a) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42
U.S.C. 2000dd-0(a)).

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_rpt/hrpt110-478.html

[gtc]

Sorry but I haven't tortured anyone like your President and commander in chief.

Sorry but you have failed once again. Bush is not my President as I am not an American (my location is clearly visible); Commander in Chief does not mean what you apparently think it means; this thread is not about what you believe Bush has done (you seem to have forgotten what this thread was about) and, last but not least, whether you have tortured anyone is completely irrelevant to the point that I made and you appear to be incapable of understanding.

The fail per word ratio in that sentence is astonishing. Do you believe the US government was involved in the September 11 attacks? Do you believe the Jews faked the holocaust? I ask because people as lacking of critical thinking skills as you seem to be are capable of believing anything*.




*If you think that this is an absurd thing to say (and you should) then you are getting close to realising the problem I have with this thread.

[Darth Rotor]

I take it than that the US military will simply sit back and supply services to all the torturers Bush, Cheney and Rice send their way. Uber sad for decency.
Sit back? Odd. The military lawyers who took the cases of detainees in Gitmo hardly sat back.

Write us when you find work.

Please do some research: a thing called civilian control of the military. We have it in our land for a variety of reasons, one being to avoid being yet another banana republic. '

Recommended reading on the topic: Charle's Dunlap on "The Origins of the coup of 2012."

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/1992/dunlap.htm

DR

[E.J.Armstrong]

You notice I used the word "effectively". Waterboarding has not been used since the passage of the DTA in 2005, for the reasons I have already listed. The bill Bush vetoed banned all techniques not already in the Army Field manual (which there is a separate thread in Politics (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108387) if you wish to discuss it). I also do believe, though feel free to quote otherwise, that Bush has stated that if a bill came to his desk that solely made waterboarding illegal, he would sign it.

But again, as I have stated, the DTA effectively outlawed torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions and Convention Against Torture) as well as cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment.

Contrary to your belief Bush is on record as saying
'...Mr. Bush announced the veto in the usual format of his weekly radio address, which is distributed to stations across the country each Saturday. He unflinchingly defended an interrogation program that has prompted critics to accuse him not only of authorizing torture previously but also of refusing to ban it in the future. “Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists,” he said. ...'

from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/washington/09policy.html

It is clear that Bush reserves the right for the US to use methods considered as torture by much of the rest of the world and international law.

If he wanted to outlaw water torture he could. He hasn't. In fact, he has refused to do so.

Your 'effectively' seems to be of no account, unfortunately for the standing of the USA in the world.

[E.J.Armstrong]

He's a torturer, she's a torturer, they're all torturers. It's too damn bad Bush, Cheney and Rice aren't Palestinian. Then E.J. would like them and apologize for them.

I see. When I publish the words of your president in his outright refusal to ban water torture by the USA you hurl personal abuse.

I notice that you provided not one single word of mine to support your claim but that seems to be your MO. And you pretend to be a sceptic?

Plus ca change it seems.

[RandFan]

I see. When I publish the words of your president in his outright refusal to ban water torture by the USA you hurl personal abuse.

I notice that you provided not one single word of mine to support your claim but that seems to be your MO. And you pretend to be a sceptic?

Plus ca change it seems.Why is your condemnation at best arbitrary and at worst selective?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Clarification, for the benefit of EJ:



http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html



http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_rpt/hrpt110-478.html


Words similar to those already existed in treaties signed by the USA and that did not stop the USA from using water torture on a number of suspects.
Please see Bush's own words as posted above.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Sorry but you have failed once again. Bush is not my President as I am not an American (my location is clearly visible); Commander in Chief does not mean what you apparently think it means; this thread is not about what you believe Bush has done (you seem to have forgotten what this thread was about) and, last but not least, whether you have tortured anyone is completely irrelevant to the point that I made and you appear to be incapable of understanding.

The fail per word ratio in that sentence is astonishing. Do you believe the US government was involved in the September 11 attacks? Do you believe the Jews faked the holocaust? I ask because people as lacking of critical thinking skills as you seem to be are capable of believing anything*.




*If you think that this is an absurd thing to say (and you should) then you are getting close to realising the problem I have with this thread.

When you say clearly visible you apparently mean you couldn't bring yourself to actually name your country.

And what exactly is it that you are alleging I think commander in chief means? Any chance of being specific here?

I haven't forgotten what this thread is about. You appear to be unable to understand some simple points.


Your questions are nonsensical. Apart from merely asserting things do you actually have any support for your allegations or any explanations?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Why is your condemnation at best arbitrary and at worst selective?

I notice that you still failed to provide one single word of mine to support the personal abuse you just hurled at me and in failing to do so have failed to support your own allegation.

Based on the evidence of your last two posts I believe it is clear that in making allegations and refusing to support them you are clearly not a sceptic but are merely here to hurl abuse at those who disgree with you.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Sit back? Odd. The military lawyers who took the cases of detainees in Gitmo hardly sat back.

Write us when you find work.

Please do some research: a thing called civilian control of the military. We have it in our land for a variety of reasons, one being to avoid being yet another banana republic. '

Recommended reading on the topic: Charle's Dunlap on "The Origins of the coup of 2012."

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/1992/dunlap.htm

DR

The US military has provided support for the torture activities of the US government. THey have done this in a number of ways
1/ By providing facilities in certain bases including Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib - both operated by the US military.

' ... Amnesty International considers that the totality of the conditions in which most of the hundreds of detainees in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba have been held can amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. ...'
from http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/AMR51/128/2003/en/dom-AMR511282003en.html

Also '... Also in May 2006, the UN Committee against Torture condemned treatment at Guantanamo Bay, noted that indefinite detention constitutes per se a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture,...'

2/ They have provided facilities at US military airfields for CIA flights illegally transporting people for torture by proxy.
'... David Miliband has admitted two US "extraordinary rendition" flights landed on UK territory in 2002.
The foreign secretary said in both cases US planes refuelled on the UK dependent territory of Diego Garcia.

He said he was "very sorry" to have to say that previous denials made in "good faith" were now having to be corrected.

The renditions - the transport of terror suspects around the world for interrogation - only came to light after a US records search, he said. ...' Not only did the USA use bases the UK supplied but used our territory to support the illegal kidnapping for torture by proxy programme then effectively lied to the UK about it.


When the USA military refuses to provide facilities and support for your government's torture and illegal kidnapping programme please let me know.

[RandFan]

I notice that you still failed to provide one single word of mine to support the personal abuse you just hurled at me and in failing to do so have failed to support your own allegation.

Based on the evidence of your last two posts I believe it is clear that in making allegations and refusing to support them you are clearly not a sceptic but are merely here to hurl abuse at those who disgree with you. Where is your thread asking "what will the Palestinians not do"? The Palestinians murder and torture but you aren't going to focus on that any time soon.

Your single mindedness on this issue is all of the evidence needed.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Where is your thread asking "what will the Palestinians not do"? The Palestinians murder and torture but you aren't going to focus on that any time soon.

Your single mindedness on this issue is all of the evidence needed.

I have challenged you piublicly to support your claims and personal abuse with words I have used. Once again you have refused to do so.

Based on this ludicrous logic presumably I am a friend of all Russians or Chinese or IRA because I have not posted a thread asking ' what will the Russians/Chinese/IRA will not do.' You do realise how ludicrous that argument is. You are most definitely not a sceptic. Your latest post merely indicates clearly that you will do whatever you can to smear people by making ridiculous demands.

Come on Randfan support your claim with some words of mine and stop running away from your own claim.

[RandFan]

"Friends"? Who said anything about "friends"? I'm only pointing out that you never attack anyone else in the same manner.

There is no reason to take you seriously on this subject because you are clearly arbitrary or selective in your condemnation.

That's all. You can keep bleating all you wish but in the end the facts will not change. You are single-minded regarding who you defend and who you condemn.

[E.J.Armstrong]

"Friends"? Who said anything about "friends"? I'm only pointing out that you never attack anyone else in the same manner.

There is no reason to take you seriously on this subject because you are clearly arbitrary or selective in your condemnation.

That's all. You can keep bleating all you wish but in the end the facts will not change. You are single-minded regarding who you defend and who you condemn.

I have repeatedly publicly challenge you to support your claims with words of mine.

You have repeatedly failed to do. You have failed to do so yet agin. It is clear that on the evidence of your last few posts that you are merely here to hurl abuse - not to behave like a sceptic.

And amazingly you are still at it. You have now made yet another claim without one word of mine to support it. You claimed that I '... never attack anyone else in the same manner. ...'

Come on Randfan I have publicly challenged you one a number of occasions now to support your own claims with words that I actually used. When are you going to do so. You seem to like challenging other people to be consistent.

Are you going to keep on running away from your own claims or are you going to stand by your claims and provide words of mine to support them?

I look forwards to you doing what a sceptic would do at some point.

[RandFan]

RandFan:

"You can keep bleating all you wish but in the end the facts will not change. You are single-minded regarding who you defend and who you condemn."

[RandFan]

It is an interesting question though. What will the Palestinians NOT do? Is there any atrocity that is beyond them? The American military take risks by implementing policies and procedures to protect civilians.

Do the Palestinians give any thought to preserving the lives of Israeli civilians?

[E.J.Armstrong]

RandFan:

"You can keep bleating all you wish but in the end the facts will not change. You are single-minded regarding who you defend and who you condemn."

Despite being publicly challenged on a number of occasions to support and justify you claims you have failed repeatedly to do so and you have failed to do so yet again.

It is clear that based on the evidence of this thread alone that your claims cannot be trusted nor you taken seriously.

You do realise how running away from your own claims makes you look on a sceptics site - don't you?

[E.J.Armstrong]

It is an interesting question though. What will the Palestinians NOT do? Is there any atrocity that is beyond them? The American military take risks by implementing policies and procedures to protect civilians.

Do the Palestinians give any thought to preserving the lives of Israeli civilians?

Still running away from your own claims I see.

Come on Randfan - don't your own words matter to you? The evidence you have posted on this thread clearly indicates that you have contempt for your own claims otherwise you would support them with some words of mine.

[RandFan]

Despite being publicly challenged on a number of occasions to support and justify you claims you have failed repeatedly to do so and you have failed to do so yet again.

It is clear that based on the evidence of this thread alone that your claims cannot be trusted nor you taken seriously.

You do realise how running away from your own claims makes you look on a sceptics site - don't you?:) I'm perfectly happy to stand with the statements I've made so far and how I've responded.

Thankfully you are not the arbiter of how I appear.

[RandFan]

Still running away from your own claims I see.

Come on Randfan - don't your own words matter to you? The evidence you have posted on this thread clearly indicates that you have contempt for your own claims otherwise you would support them with some words of mine. See previous post.

[IchabodPlain]

Contrary to your belief Bush is on record as saying
'...Mr. Bush announced the veto in the usual format of his weekly radio address, which is distributed to stations across the country each Saturday. He unflinchingly defended an interrogation program that has prompted critics to accuse him not only of authorizing torture previously but also of refusing to ban it in the future. “Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists,” he said. ...'

from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/washington/09policy.html

EJ, you must work on your reading comprehension. The bill Bush vetoed, not only banned waterboarding, but all interrogation methods that are not already incorporated into the Army Field Manual. I believe this is the third time I've had to repeat myself on this. From your link:

The bill Mr. Bush vetoed would have limited all American interrogators to techniques allowed in the Army field manual on interrogation


It is clear that Bush reserves the right for the US to use methods considered as torture by much of the rest of the world and international law.

How is it "clear"? AFAIK, The US has not used waterboarding or torture since Dec. 18 2005 (which is when the DTA was signed into law).

If he wanted to outlaw water torture he could. He hasn't. In fact, he has refused to do so.

No, he couldn't. The President doesn't write bills, Congress does.

Your 'effectively' seems to be of no account, unfortunately for the standing of the USA in the world.

No, I used the word 'effectively' because waterboarding, specifically and explicitly, has not been banned, but the US has banned torture and cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment or punishment.

[E.J.Armstrong]

:) I'm perfectly happy to stand with the statements I've made so far and how I've responded.

Thankfully you are not the arbiter of how I appear.

But you completely failed to support your own allegations against me without providing one single word of mine to support them and the evidence is all on this thread. Once again you have posted and completely failed to provide one word of mine to support your claims.

It is clear that as you have consistently now failed to support your allegations with one single word of mine that your claims cannot be trusted.


That you are happy with making allegations but failing to support them when challenged. demonstrates more clearly that anything I could post your contempt for your own claims.

Making things up and refusing to support them is the realm of Sylvia Browne as so eloquently demonstrated by Randi.

[E.J.Armstrong]

See previous post.

See previous posts.

Is there any chance at all that you will ever support your allegations with at least one word of mine?

[RandFan]

But you completely failed to support your own allegations against me without providing one single word of mine to support them and the evidence is all on this thread. Once again you have posted and completely failed to provide one word of mine to support your claims.

It is clear that as you have consistently now failed to support your allegations with one single word of mine that your claims cannot be trusted.


That you are happy with making allegations but failing to support them when challenged. demonstrates more clearly that anything I could post your contempt for your own claims.

Making things up and refusing to support them is the realm of Sylvia Browne as so eloquently demonstrated by Randi.

See previous posts.

Is there any chance at all that you will ever support your allegations with at least one word of mine?Now you are simply arguing ad nauseam (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nauseam).

[E.J.Armstrong]

EJ, you must work on your reading comprehension. The bill Bush vetoed, not only banned waterboarding, but all interrogation methods that are not already incorporated into the Army Field Manual. I believe this is the third time I've had to repeat myself on this. From your link:[/QUOTE[]

You must work on your reading comprehension. I have told you a number of times that the US has done things that were unlawful under teaties it had signed and international including torture. Bush has specifically refused to outlaw waterboarding. I would also direct you to this
'...WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief. ...'

from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

This indicates that Bush reserves the right to bypass the law so that it effectively is not the deterrent you seem to think it is.

See also '... WASHINGTON, July 23 — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. ...' from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html


How is it "clear"? AFAIK, The US has not used waterboarding or torture since Dec. 18 2005 (which is when the DTA was signed into law). How do you know? Bush has reserved the right to flout US law.

No, he couldn't. The President doesn't write bills, Congress does. He does however issue executive orders.



No, I used the word 'effectively' because waterboarding, specifically and explicitly, has not been banned, but the US has banned torture and cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment or punishment. But Bush reserves the right to flout that law as demonstrated above. Also see '...US Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3. ...' from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_%28United_States%29

[E.J.Armstrong]

Now you are simply arguing ad nauseam (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nauseam).


No. I am publicly holding you to account for your own claims.

You have once again failed to quote one single word of mine in support of your allegations.

Why are you running away from your own claims?

[Whiplash]

You do realise how running away from your own claims makes you look on a sceptics site - don't you?

He's looking pretty good (and reasonable/rational) to me. You on the other hand... ;)

[RandFan]

No. I am publicly holding you to account for your own claims.

You have once again failed to quote one single word of mine in support of your allegations.

Why are you running away from your own claims?:catfight:

E.J.: You are a dooty head.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.

No I'm not.

Your turn.

[E.J.Armstrong]

:catfight:

E.J.: You are a dooty head.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.
RF: No I'm not.
E.J.: Yes you are.

No I'm not.

Your turn.

I believe that Randi holds the opinion that if you make the claim you support it. You won't.

[RandFan]

I believe that Randi holds the opinion that if you make the claim you support it. You won't.

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

[Mycroft]

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

There is a reason why I stopped responding to EJ some years ago.

[IchabodPlain]

You must work on your reading comprehension. I have told you a number of times that the US has done things that were unlawful under teaties it had signed and international including torture. Bush has specifically refused to outlaw waterboarding. I would also direct you to this
'...WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief. ...'

from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...w_torture_ban/

This indicates that Bush reserves the right to bypass the law so that it effectively is not the deterrent you seem to think it is.

See also '... WASHINGTON, July 23 — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. ...' from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/wa...n/24prexy.html


Your Boston Harald article was written more than two years ago; none of which has come to pass. From the Ny Times article:

In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.

Seems this is quite common for Mr. Bush; he has yet to even attempt to exercise his statement however.

He does however issue executive orders.

Good point, but you know his MO;)

But Bush reserves the right to flout that law as demonstrated above. Also see '...US Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3. ...' from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_%28United_States%29

You seem to think president Bush reserves that right, and maybe even Bush himself does, but his believing does not make it so. Doing so would be contentious, and would probably be constitutionally challenged. But it hasn't happened yet, whereas you seem to think it has.

[LastChild]

Well I know there is one thing they would never ever do. They would never throw a poor defenseless puppy over the side of a cliff. Nope, never. There are a lot of bad things that go down in a war but they would never stoop so low as to hurt a poor animal like... huh? What? He did what? Really? Oh… well never mind then.

There is probably nothing they wouldn't do.

[RandFan]

Well I know there is one thing they would never ever do. They would never throw a poor defenseless puppy over the side of a cliff. Nope, never. There are a lot of bad things that go down in a war but they would never stoop so low as to hurt a poor animal like... huh? What? He did what? Really? Oh… well never mind then.

There is probably nothing they wouldn't do.Americans are human and just as capable of cruelty as anyone else. No one is claiming Americans are incapable of inhumanity.

Your post is a strawman.

[Mycroft]

Well I know there is one thing they would never ever do. They would never throw a poor defenseless puppy over the side of a cliff. Nope, never. There are a lot of bad things that go down in a war but they would never stoop so low as to hurt a poor animal like... huh? What? He did what? Really? Oh… well never mind then.

There is probably nothing they wouldn't do.

So how many US soldiers do you think throw puppies from cliffs?

Edited to add ironic link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/27/wirq27.xml

[gtc]

When you say clearly visible you apparently mean you couldn't bring yourself to actually name your country.

Is this a clumsy attempt to admit that you have no idea where I live? Is your problem that you can't find where my location is listed or is your problem that you can't understand what I have typed there? Maybe your problem is simply an inability to use Google. When you tell me which of these is your problem then I can help you out. I am always happy to help you overcome your problems.

And what exactly is it that you are alleging I think commander in chief means? Any chance of being specific here?

Good, I am glad to see that you are confronting your problems. In this case your problem is that you assumed that George Bush was my Commander in Chief. Chances are that, even were I an American, he would not be my Commander in Chief. This is a different problem to assuming that I am an American, despite having no reason to assume that I was American and despite my location being clearly visible. Or perhaps it is the same problem; do you have an inability to use Google?

I haven't forgotten what this thread is about. You appear to be unable to understand some simple points.

And what simple points exactly are you are alleging that I am unable to understand? Any chance of being specific here?

Your questions are nonsensical.

Congratulations! I am so proud. You have taken the first step towards understanding why your questions in the OP are nonsensical. If you are able to take the next step and work out the commonalities between the two sets of questions then you will have succesfully managed to overcome one of your problems.

Apart from merely asserting things do you actually have any support for your allegations or any explanations?

You are definitely getting closer. Keep trying. You are almost there. Try thinking about how the question you have just asked applies to your very own thread!

[E.J.Armstrong]

Your Boston Harald article was written more than two years ago; none of which has come to pass. From the Ny Times article: How do you know.



Seems this is quite common for Mr. Bush; he has yet to even attempt to exercise his statement however. Again how do you know. Did the CIA publicise their illegal kidnapping for torture by proxy programme or their illegal hidden gulag programme or their water torture of al quaeda suspects when they did it?



Good point, but you know his MO;)



You seem to think president Bush reserves that right, and maybe even Bush himself does, but his believing does not make it so. Doing so would be contentious, and would probably be constitutionally challenged. But it hasn't happened yet, whereas you seem to think it has.

Bush has explicitly reserved the right to torture as posted a number of times now. Under his command the US has repeatedly tortured people and set up secret gulags and illegally transported people for torture by proxy - all of which is supposedly banned by US law. Why should anyone believe that US law is a protection against torture when your president and his government have already repeatedly flouted it with little to no comeback. I have repeatedly pointed this out but you seem to believe that your president and government actually are bound by the law despite all the evidence to the contrary.

See

'...By now you have probably heard the news that George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years and he says he intends to continue the program.

These actions explicitly violate a law designed to protect US citizens. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program. ...'
from http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/12/did_george_bush.php

Even his right wing lunatic friends state that he has flouted the law

see ' ...International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1

[E.J.Armstrong]

Is this a clumsy attempt to admit that you have no idea where I live? Is your problem that you can't find where my location is listed or is your problem that you can't understand what I have typed there? Maybe your problem is simply an inability to use Google. When you tell me which of these is your problem then I can help you out. I am always happy to help you overcome your problems. While you refuse to openly state where you live on what basis should others do your job for you? Are we to assume that you are telling the truth, which to be honest I wonder if that is not too much of a stretch given your repeated refusal to be explicit. Are we to assume that the land down under is not some place in Florida or South America or South Africa or Sri Lanka or the Antarctic or anywhere else in the southern hemisphere? Are we to assume that you are actually from that unnamed place as opposed to living for a short period? Are we to assume whether you have or have not changed nationality?. In short until you actually tell us how do we know for sure and even then? Bizarrely, you seem to think I can read your mind. I do hope that simple issue is now clear to you but I do not hold out much hope and suspect you will carry on refusing to be specific and insisting people guess.

Good, I am glad to see that you are confronting your problems. In this case your problem is that you assumed that George Bush was my Commander in Chief. Chances are that, even were I an American, he would not be my Commander in Chief. This is a different problem to assuming that I am an American, despite having no reason to assume that I was American and despite my location being clearly visible. Or perhaps it is the same problem; do you have an inability to use Google? Unfortunately you are still refusing to confront your problems. I will try and point out the simple facts again as you don't seem to have grasped them yet. You haven't told me what country you come from or live in. You actually haven't specified a country at all. Do you understand that? I'm not sure you do.

As I have already patiently pointed out a number of times now you have yet to actually make your location or nationality visible without expecting people to read you mind.

You are also wrong about what I think but that doesn't seem to stop you making assertions on the matter.

And what simple points exactly are you are alleging that I am unable to understand? Any chance of being specific here? Your introduction of a specific religious group shows your inability to understand what this thread is about.

Your inability to understand that you have not specified what nationality you are. That your indicated location could be taken to mean any number of things. Your repeated appeal to guess work is indicative of an inability to understand that other people are not mind readers. But keep trying. One day you might understand that simple point.

Congratulations! I am so proud. You have taken the first step towards understanding why your questions in the OP are nonsensical. If you are able to take the next step and work out the commonalities between the two sets of questions then you will have succesfully managed to overcome one of your problems. Unfortunately I am not so proud of you because I still have to give you a 'Z' for clarity. You have failed to specify what you are talking about and once again seem expect people to read your mind. Try that in your exams and see how far you get. You get a 'Z' grade here but at least the only way is up from there.

You are definitely getting closer. Keep trying. You are almost there. Try thinking about how the question you have just asked applies to your very own thread!

And you're definitely not getting any closer. You're clearly not taking this clarity thing seriously. When you do you might be taken seriously. Another 'Z' I'm afraid. Not only that but could try harder and won't.

Any chance of you actually explaining at some stage what exactly you are actually talking about for a change (you know simple things like a detail or two) because so far you have failed horribly?

[Polaris]

What will the US Military not do? Here's an incomplete list:


Fly jetliners full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people
Use a kitchen knife to saw the head off of an aid worker.
Blow up ancient statues for non-military, religious reasons.
Press-gang retarded people into wearing bomb-vests into pet bazaars.
Set off a bomb inside a nightclub so that the survivors run outside into the blast of a bigger bomb.
Shoot a man in a wheelchair and throw him over the rail of a cruise ship.
Set off a bomb among school-children and then machine gun the rest in the back when they run for their lives.
Stone rape victims to death for adultery.
Set peoples' heads on fire after someone suggests that Mohammad would like a beauty queen.
Burn embassies because of cartoons.
Push schoolgirls into a burning building because of a 7th century dress code.
Stone to death illegitimate infants.

[gtc]

Florida is not in the Southern Hemisphere.

Discussion seems futile and baiting the mentally ill reflects badly on me; so I shall say no more.

[IchabodPlain]

How do you know.

No proof.

Again how do you know. Did the CIA publicise their illegal kidnapping for torture by proxy programme or their illegal hidden gulag programme or their water torture of al quaeda suspects when they did it?

You and I know about it. Congress knew "torture" was authorized.


Bush has explicitly reserved the right to torture as posted a number of times now.

His stated explicit right don't make it so. And again, no evidence to suggest he has exercised his supposed right.


Under his command the US has repeatedly tortured people and set up secret gulags and illegally transported people for torture by proxy - all of which is supposedly banned by US law. Why should anyone believe that US law is a protection against torture when your president and his government have already repeatedly flouted it with little to no comeback. I have repeatedly pointed this out but you seem to believe that your president and government actually are bound by the law despite all the evidence to the contrary.


There is no evidence suggesting Bush has violated the DTA.

See

'...By now you have probably heard the news that George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years and he says he intends to continue the program.

These actions explicitly violate a law designed to protect US citizens. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program. ...'
from http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/12/did_george_bush.php

Irrelevant.

Even his right wing lunatic friends state that he has flouted the law

see ' ...International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1

Irrelevant.

[IchabodPlain]

While you refuse to openly state where you live on what basis should others do your job for you? Are we to assume that you are telling the truth, which to be honest I wonder if that is not too much of a stretch given your repeated refusal to be explicit. Are we to assume that the land down under is not some place in Florida or South America or South Africa or Sri Lanka or the Antarctic or anywhere else in the southern hemisphere? Are we to assume that you are actually from that unnamed place as opposed to living for a short period? Are we to assume whether you have or have not changed nationality?. In short until you actually tell us how do we know for sure and even then? Bizarrely, you seem to think I can read your mind. I do hope that simple issue is now clear to you but I do not hold out much hope and suspect you will carry on refusing to be specific and insisting people guess.


Come on EJ, the Land "Down Under (http://www.dtp-aus.com/aus.htm)"? It's practically the National Motto.

[Darth Rotor]

The US military has provided support for the torture activities of the US government. THey have done this in a number of ways

You make the mistake of attempting to pretend that the two organizations are not related, and that the US military is autonomous from the US Government, as a sovereign nation would be.

That is not the case.

My uncle once suggested not pissing into a fan.

EJ, he was right.

DR

[RandFan]

What will the US Military not do? Here's an incomplete list:

Fly jetliners full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people
Use a kitchen knife to saw the head off of an aid worker.
Blow up ancient statues for non-military, religious reasons.
Press-gang retarded people into wearing bomb-vests into pet bazaars.
Set off a bomb inside a nightclub so that the survivors run outside into the blast of a bigger bomb.
Shoot a man in a wheelchair and throw him over the rail of a cruise ship.
Set off a bomb among school-children and then machine gun the rest in the back when they run for their lives.
Stone rape victims to death for adultery.
Set peoples' heads on fire after someone suggests that Mohammad would like a beauty queen.
Burn embassies because of cartoons.
Push schoolgirls into a burning building because of a 7th century dress code.
Stone to death illegitimate infants.Bears repeating.

[BPSCG]

What will the US Military not do? Here's an incomplete list:

Fly jetliners full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people
Use a kitchen knife to saw the head off of an aid worker.
Blow up ancient statues for non-military, religious reasons.
Press-gang retarded people into wearing bomb-vests into pet bazaars.
Set off a bomb inside a nightclub so that the survivors run outside into the blast of a bigger bomb.
Shoot a man in a wheelchair and throw him over the rail of a cruise ship.
Set off a bomb among school-children and then machine gun the rest in the back when they run for their lives.
Stone rape victims to death for adultery.
Set peoples' heads on fire after someone suggests that Mohammad would like a beauty queen.
Burn embassies because of cartoons.
Push schoolgirls into a burning building because of a 7th century dress code.
Stone to death illegitimate infants.Bears repeating again (E.J., does this answer the question from your OP?), but should also include, "Dry-hump your cocker spaniel while you're watching."

[Polaris]

Fly jetliners full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people
Use a kitchen knife to saw the head off of an aid worker.
Blow up ancient statues for non-military, religious reasons.
Press-gang retarded people into wearing bomb-vests into pet bazaars.
Set off a bomb inside a nightclub so that the survivors run outside into the blast of a bigger bomb.
Shoot a man in a wheelchair and throw him over the rail of a cruise ship.
Set off a bomb among school-children and then machine gun the rest in the back when they run for their lives.
Stone rape victims to death for adultery.
Set peoples' heads on fire after someone suggests that Mohammad would like a beauty queen.
Burn embassies because of cartoons.
Push schoolgirls into a burning building because of a 7th century dress code.
Stone to death illegitimate infants.
Dry-hump your cocker spaniel while you're watching.


Now it's a complete list.

[The Painter]

What will the US military NOT do?

Give up on Great Britain. We have bailed you out at least twice, and we will do it again if necessary. You can insult us all you want, we know you still love us. Even if you decide to invade the Falkland Islands again, we've got your back. You are now our little brother.

[E.J.Armstrong]

There is a reason why I stopped responding to EJ some years ago.

ER wrong again. You were caught out like Randfan making an allegation you point blank refused to support with any evidence. It is no surprise to me that you support Randfan in doing the same thing. How long is it now - going over two years yet?

[E.J.Armstrong]

What will the US Military not do? Here's an incomplete list:


Fly jetliners full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people
Use a kitchen knife to saw the head off of an aid worker.
Blow up ancient statues for non-military, religious reasons.
Press-gang retarded people into wearing bomb-vests into pet bazaars.
Set off a bomb inside a nightclub so that the survivors run outside into the blast of a bigger bomb.
Shoot a man in a wheelchair and throw him over the rail of a cruise ship.
Set off a bomb among school-children and then machine gun the rest in the back when they run for their lives.
Stone rape victims to death for adultery.
Set peoples' heads on fire after someone suggests that Mohammad would like a beauty queen.
Burn embassies because of cartoons.
Push schoolgirls into a burning building because of a 7th century dress code.
Stone to death illegitimate infants.

You're quite right but they do support torture by providing bases and facilities.

Since when has illegal behaviour by others been the green light for torture by the US?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Florida is not in the Southern Hemisphere.

Discussion seems futile and baiting the mentally ill reflects badly on me; so I shall say no more.

Ah - the definitive argument. Refuse to address simple questions and hurl personal abuse.

[E.J.Armstrong]

No proof.



You and I know about it. Congress knew "torture" was authorized. The CIA told you when they were torturing people?



His stated explicit right don't make it so. And again, no evidence to suggest he has exercised his supposed right. You still seem to be operating under the assumption that you know what you secret services are doing and that Bush's word can be trusted despite the evidence to the contrary? I wonder how that is?



There is no evidence suggesting Bush has violated the DTA. Again, you seem to believe what you are told. Bush insists on the right to torture people and the CIA tortured people. You know it's happened before without evidence at the time it happened.

Your presdient insists on the right to torture and your government has tortured people. You can assume the best if you wish but I suggest that recent history suggest that is a stupid thing to do.
Irrelevant.



Irrelevant.

Evidence of Bush's law breaking is irrelevant to a discussion about Bush's law breaking? Zut alors. Mein Gott. Gott in Himmel. Jesus Mary and Joseph. Mama Mia.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Come on EJ, the Land "Down Under (http://www.dtp-aus.com/aus.htm)"? It's practically the National Motto.

Remind me. When does the location of anyone define their nationality? I seem to recall a number of posters living in a different country from the one they were born in - like me for example.

[E.J.Armstrong]

You make the mistake of attempting to pretend that the two organizations are not related, and that the US military is autonomous from the US Government, as a sovereign nation would be.

That is not the case.

My uncle once suggested not pissing into a fan.

EJ, he was right.

DR

Au contraire. I am merely highlighting the support that the US military has provided for the torture programme. It seems you don't like that but hey ho.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Bears repeating again (E.J., does this answer the question from your OP?), but should also include, "Dry-hump your cocker spaniel while you're watching."

It appears to miss out the charge against them - namely aiding and abetting Bush, Cheney and Rice's torture programme so the poster appears to agree with me. QED.

PS Under international law none of those appalling actions is an excuse to torture people otherwise you become as bad as them.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Give up on Great Britain. We have bailed you out at least twice, and we will do it again if necessary. You can insult us all you want, we know you still love us. Even if you decide to invade the Falkland Islands again, we've got your back. You are now our little brother.

I don't want torturers at our back thanks. It gives us a bad name and makes it a travesty when we ask other people to behave better when we have the troops of a nation that tortures people on our territory.

Any chance of your guys giving up torture?

[zooterkin]

Remind me. When does the location of anyone define their nationality?

You were talking about where they lived, not their nationality.

[gtc]

Remind me. When does the location of anyone define their nationality? I seem to recall a number of posters living in a different country from the one they were born in - like me for example.

Lets end this stupidity now. E.J. Armstrong was wrong when he suggested that George Bush was my President and Commander-in-Chief:

Sorry but I haven't tortured anyone like your President and commander in chief.

I do not live in America, nor am I an American citizen. He had no basis to suggest that I was an American as I had given him no reason to believe that I was an American and my location is clearly visible.

He was also wrong because George Bush is, according to the Article II of the US Constitution, 'Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States'. This means that, unless I was in the US military (or in the National Guard and called up to federal service), Bush would not be my Commander-in-Chief even if I was American.

Claiming that my location is not obvious and that I have some duty to spell it out in words of one syllable or that, even if my location is obvious, I could still be an American citizen serving in the American military is just a pointless derail of his own thread.

Someone who attempts to derail their own thread in such silly ways is either not completely with it or desperately trying to change the subject to avoid providing the evidence for the claims they made in their opening post.

As far as I am concerned, this derail is over and I will not enter into further discussion.

[The Painter]

I don't want torturers at our back thanks. It gives us a bad name and makes it a travesty when we ask other people to behave better when we have the troops of a nation that tortures people on our territory.

Any chance of your guys giving up torture?


You got a bad name all on your own. Centuries of conquering, raping, torturing and plundering. You guys set the bar on that. We can't even come close.

As for the torturing thing, we'll keep a secret, like your government does. OK?

[BPSCG]

It appears to miss out the charge against them - namely aiding and abetting Bush, Cheney and Rice's torture programme so the poster appears to agree with me. QED.E.J., you really must pay better attention to the question you posed in the OP, indeed in the title of your thread: "What will the U.S. military will NOT do?"


Pardalis answered your question:
Fly jetliners full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people
Use a kitchen knife to saw the head off of an aid worker.
Blow up ancient statues for non-military, religious reasons.
Press-gang retarded people into wearing bomb-vests into pet bazaars.
Set off a bomb inside a nightclub so that the survivors run outside into the blast of a bigger bomb.
Shoot a man in a wheelchair and throw him over the rail of a cruise ship.
Set off a bomb among school-children and then machine gun the rest in the back when they run for their lives.
Stone rape victims to death for adultery.
Set peoples' heads on fire after someone suggests that Mohammad would like a beauty queen.
Burn embassies because of cartoons.
Push schoolgirls into a burning building because of a 7th century dress code.
Stone to death illegitimate infants.He also stipulated that this was not a complete list. Do you, or do you not, agree that these are things the U.S. military would not do? Do you, or do you not, agree that this is an answer to your question?

If so, what is your problem?

[RandFan]

He also stipulated that this was not a complete list. Do you, or do you not, agree that these are things the U.S. military would not do? Do you, or do you not, agree that this is an answer to your question?


If so, what is your problem? I'd like an answer.

BTW, if I were to join the US military would I be expressly prohibited from spending a quiet evening with EJ's cocker spaniel?

[bigred]

I joined and can confirm I have never done more than give a quick amorous glance to a passing cocker spaniel and have never tortured anything, unless you count my girlfriend (according to her that is, and who really listens to women anyway?). No aiding and abetting here by golly.

[FarmallMTA]

Leftists and other anti-Americans seek to define illegality as that which the US Military does. I and other thinking individuals recognise that. We also see through the the creeping media and MoveOn.org-type cultural attempts to make the US Military, by definition, illegal.

I, and other thinking Americans, recognise that the US Constitution gives the Commander-in-Chief, thankfully George W. Bush at this point, the duty to protect the US and her citizens. Those military actions which do so are therefore not only constitutionally provided for, hence legal, but MANDATED.

So... illegal by the typical leftist definition is actually legal, proper, necessary and Constitutional. Thank God we have a president and military people who understand this.

In response to your silly question, I sincerely hope there is NOTHING the US Military will NOT DO to protect the nation, within the original intent of the Constitution.

[BPSCG]

I joined and can confirm I have never done more than give a quick amorous glance to a passing cocker spaniel and have never tortured anything, unless you count my girlfriend (according to her that is, and who really listens to women anyway?). No aiding and abetting here by golly.That's because you hate America. Why do you hate America, you stinking America hater?

[Sabrina]

Just to offer the other side of the coin...

The March 07 copy of Soldiers Magazine (http://www.army.mil/publications/soldiersmagazine/pdfs/mar07all.pdf) details the treatment the Gitmo detainees receive... and the treatment they offer to their guards in return.

During recreation time, detainees play basketball or soccer, or use exercise bicycles or treadmills. They read from a growing library of thousands of books in a dozen languages. They choose from meals that meet religious requirements and varied dietary needs. They are cared for by 100 medical personnel in a 20-bed facility similar to an American forward-deployed field hospital. Pre-existing medical conditions— often undiagnosed and untreated prior to detention — have been addressed. Detainees have been fitted with prostheses for battlefield injuries and given physical therapy. More than
300 operations have been performed, including hemorrhoid surgeries, hernia
repairs and an appendectomy. Everyone over 50 was offered a colonoscopy
to detect colon cancer. One detainee has had a cancerous tumor removed.
Diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease and blood-pressure issues have
been addressed, camp officials said. The nature of the medical care has
changed from treatment of the acute conditions many detainees arrived
with to the preventive health measures familiar to many Americans.

In contrast...

“These detainees have their political, religious and military leaders,”
the lieutenant colonel added. “They have their messengers. They have their
memorizers; they have people who memorize guards’ names. They have
their shock troops who will throw a ‘cocktail’ of feces, urine, vomit, blood, whatever, in order to get moved to a different block so they can communicate, and they have the people who are the mouthpieces who will speak for the leaders. They’re very organized. They’ve been here a long time.”
Weapons seized from detainees include a billy club fashioned from MRE rappers, an intricate trash-bag garrote and a variety of crude shanks.

“We’re toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball with detainees on a daily basis,”
Leacock said. “The detainees threaten to kill us. They threaten that if they
ever get out they’ll track down our families and kill them. They use every
possible racial slur to try to drive a wedge between members of the guard
force.”

I would also point out that the article mentions a document known as the Manchester Document that has been identified as an Al Qaeda training manual. It specifically directs members to, if they are captured, claim that they were tortured or mistreated while detained. The document is available in its entirety on the Department of Justice website (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm). Perhaps, instead of always crying torture based on the word of detainess who have been SPECIFICALLY TOLD to lie if captured, we should take their word with a huge honkin' shaker of salt and realize that the mainstream media exaggerates and distorts items such as this to sell their stories.

And speaking as a US Military member myself, I can state quite clearly that, if a soldier feels an order is unlawful, they are absolutely allowed to refuse to carry such an order out.

My two cents.

[IchabodPlain]

The CIA told you when they were torturing people?

Is that what I said? No. It wasn't.


You still seem to be operating under the assumption that you know what you secret services are doing and that Bush's word can be trusted despite the evidence to the contrary? I wonder how that is?

No EJ, that would be you whose operating under assumptions. You know, the one that Bush is doing something illegal without any proof to back it up?

Who said anything about trust? I said evidence.


Again, you seem to believe what you are told. Bush insists on the right to torture people and the CIA tortured people. You know it's happened before without evidence at the time it happened.


No, I refuse to believe what you tell me without any proof to back your claim up. Provide me a list of tortured persons after 2005. Can't do it? ZOMG! I'm a sheep!!!11!!1

Your presdient insists on the right to torture and your government has tortured people. You can assume the best if you wish but I suggest that recent history suggest that is a stupid thing to do.

The sky isn't falling. There is no evidence the US, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Neo-cons, etc have tortured anyone since 2005.

Evidence of Bush's law breaking is irrelevant to a discussion about Bush's law breaking? Zut alors. Mein Gott. Gott in Himmel. Jesus Mary and Joseph. Mama Mia.

Evidence of breaking the law I posted, which you claimed Bush has broken, is relevant.

[JimBenArm]

I'd like an answer.

BTW, if I were to join the US military would I be expressly prohibited from spending a quiet evening with EJ's cocker spaniel?
Per the UCMJ, you would be required to bring KY and use it. Dry-humping it is completely forbidden.
Other than that, no problem!

[Pardalis]

Pardalis answered your question:
Fly jetliners full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people
Use a kitchen knife to saw the head off of an aid worker.
Blow up ancient statues for non-military, religious reasons.
Press-gang retarded people into wearing bomb-vests into pet bazaars.
Set off a bomb inside a nightclub so that the survivors run outside into the blast of a bigger bomb.
Shoot a man in a wheelchair and throw him over the rail of a cruise ship.
Set off a bomb among school-children and then machine gun the rest in the back when they run for their lives.
Stone rape victims to death for adultery.
Set peoples' heads on fire after someone suggests that Mohammad would like a beauty queen.
Burn embassies because of cartoons.
Push schoolgirls into a burning building because of a 7th century dress code.
Stone to death illegitimate infants.Actually Polaris said that, but I wish I did. ;)

Meanwhile in camp Bucca things seem to be not going so bad, considering the situation:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/28/btsc.iraqprison/index.html

Inmates undergo religious re-education where imams preach a moderate interpretation of Islam. The prison also offers art classes. Some attend English courses. Even civics courses teaching Western-style democracy are offered.

[BPSCG]

Actually Polaris said that, but I wish I did. ;)Dammit, I knew I'd get Polaris and Pardalis confused eventually. :boggled:

[Pardalis]

Dammit, I knew I'd get Polaris and Pardalis confused eventually. :boggled:

Pardalis is the handsome one. :D

[E.J.Armstrong]

You were talking about where they lived, not their nationality. I guess Bush wouldn't be the president of a non-american.

[JimBenArm]

I guess Bush wouldn't be the president of a non-american.
Wow! Got it right on the first guess!

I'm amazed!

[E.J.Armstrong]

Lets end this stupidity now. E.J. Armstrong was wrong when he suggested that George Bush was my President and Commander-in-Chief: I accept that you are not American.

I do not live in America, nor am I an American citizen. He had no basis to suggest that I was an American as I had given him no reason to believe that I was an American and my location is clearly visible. Your location is implied not explicit. Your location need have nothing to do with your nationality. Given that I do not live in the country of my birth, why should I assume that you or anyone else does unless you tell us explicitly. Which you haven't yet as far as I am aware.

He was also wrong because George Bush is, according to the Article II of the US Constitution, 'Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States'. This means that, unless I was in the US military (or in the National Guard and called up to federal service), Bush would not be my Commander-in-Chief even if I was American. I accept that you are not American and not in the US military and by definition do not have Bush as your commander in chief.

Claiming that my location is not obvious and that I have some duty to spell it out in words of one syllable or that, even if my location is obvious, I could still be an American citizen serving in the American military is just a pointless derail of his own thread.

As I have patiently pointed out on a number occasions now: -
1/ Your location is not specified. You could mean any country in the southern hemisphere or south of any arbitrary point.
2/ Even if your location is specified one could only make an assumption that you were a citizen of that country without additional information. Given that I do not live in the country of my birth it would be rather stupid to assume that you were born at your current location. Sorry, but those are simple facts.

Someone who attempts to derail their own thread in such silly ways is either not completely with it or desperately trying to change the subject to avoid providing the evidence for the claims they made in their opening post.

As far as I am concerned, this derail is over and I will not enter into further discussion.

Au contraire, you were the one creating a mountain out of a molehill and despite the huge sandstorm of patently false indignation you have still not stated explicitly either
1/ The country you are located in or
2/ What country you were born in.

Given that you have declined repeatedly to confirm simple facts and would rather force others to make assumptions, or in other words read your mind, I consider that your actions are in no way related to the issue of where you were actually born or live.

G'day Bruce.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Is that what I said? No. It wasn't. How then did you find out what the CIA was doing? Did they tell you at the time they were torturing people? I suspect not. They kept their dirty work secret.

No EJ, that would be you whose operating under assumptions. You know, the one that Bush is doing something illegal without any proof to back it up? I believe that given the guy's history that is likely to be a more realistic assumption than assuming that despite all his protestations to the contrary he hasn't carried on torturing people. I think his record shows that to believe anything he or the CIA say is foolhardy.

Who said anything about trust? I said evidence. Strange. You did not have evidence that the CIA was torturing people the last time yet they tortured people. QED.

The evidence is that Bush as president of the USA has insisted on his right to torture anyone he wants, any time he wants and anywhere he wants. Despite his record of torturing people you chose to believe that he will not and has not since 2005 when he is already by deed a torturer.

Interestingly my approach appears to be vindicated. The Guardian newspaper reports today (page 22) that '... The Bush administration still allows the CIA to use torture methods banned under international law, official letters from the justice department published yesterday show. ...' QED it seems.

No, I refuse to believe what you tell me without any proof to back your claim up. Provide me a list of tortured persons after 2005. Can't do it? ZOMG! I'm a sheep!!!11!!1 And, with independent corroboration, I refuse to believe a word your president or the CIA says given their history of actually torturing people against international law. History suggests that to do otherwise would be stupid in the extreme, especially given the recently released letters discussed in the Guardian above.

The sky isn't falling. There is no evidence the US, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Neo-cons, etc have tortured anyone since 2005. And as you know that means nothing whatsoever, given their documented history of torture and their continued insistence of being able to torture whoever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want.

The latest evidence in the letters from the US justice department appear to show that the torturers Bush, Cheney and Rice are still at it.

Evidence of breaking the law I posted, which you claimed Bush has broken, is relevant.

Bush, Cheney and Rice are torturers. Their administration insists on being able to torture whoever they want, whenever they want. The latest letters indicate that they are still at their despicable and internationally criminal activities.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Actually Polaris said that, but I wish I did. ;)

Meanwhile in camp Bucca things seem to be not going so bad, considering the situation:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/28/btsc.iraqprison/index.html

It's an interesting piece. Apparently the boss says

'... the new policies are already paying dividends: "Detainees now tell us more about the network of al Qaeda, about the training techniques of al Qaeda, about how they fund their operations." ...'

And apparently all without torture. Good for him.

It's just a pity that he doesn't see the need to put the 'bad' people on trial - after all all the allegations must be true and by definition they are all guilty because he says so. Unfortunately yet another law free US camp. Shame. What is it with the US military and holding people indefinitely without trial?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Wow! Got it right on the first guess!

I'm amazed!

Glad you clarified that point of law for me. I suppose asking Bush to obey international law would be too much?

[Pardalis]

It's not going to be perfect. There's a war going on out there, with an enemy that doesn't follow the rules of war.

[E.J.Armstrong]

You got a bad name all on your own. Centuries of conquering, raping, torturing and plundering. You guys set the bar on that. We can't even come close.

As for the torturing thing, we'll keep a secret, like your government does. OK?

Our country certainly has a terrible history in many parts of the world. The essential difference I think you'll find is that Bush insists on his right to torture whoever he wants, whenever he wants and wherever he wants. Not only does he proclaim that right from the roof tops he has actually tortured people in contravention of international law. The latest letters from the US justice department show that he's still trying to polish unmentionable fecal ejecta.

[Pardalis]

You know, I've never seen you admonish AQ's techniques: blowing themselves up in public places, cutting people's faces off with piano wires and other torture techniques:

the following is NSFW
AQ'S torture manual (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html)

[E.J.Armstrong]

It's not going to be perfect. There's a war going on out there, with an enemy that doesn't follow the rules of war.

One of the things that is supposed to differentiate the 'good' guys from the 'bad' guys is the rule of law. If you refuse to follow the rule of law how can the world differentiate you from the 'bad' guys?

[E.J.Armstrong]

You know, I've never seen you admonish AQ's techniques: blowing themselves up in public places, cutting people's faces off with piano wires and other torture techniques:

the following is NSFW
AQ'S torture manual (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html)


You know I've never seen you criticise disembowelling babies with machetes, burning innocent women alive on the fires of their babies or lopping the penises off people on skid row.

Time to grow up a bit don't you think?

[Pardalis]

One of the things that is supposed to differentiate the 'good' guys from the 'bad' guys is the rule of law. If you refuse to follow the rule of law how can the world differentiate you from the 'bad' guys?

Glad you agree that AQ are the bad guys.

Maybe you'd like to join the fight against them one day?

[mrbaracuda]

You know, I've never seen you admonish AQ's techniques: blowing themselves up in public places, cutting people's faces off with piano wires and other torture techniques:

the following is NSFW
AQ'S torture manual (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html)


Uh. I don't even want to know what the Nasrallah boys do with their Joos for fun time. :boggled:

[bigred]

That's because you hate America. Why do you hate America, you stinking America hater?
You kidding? Too many reasons to list, but I'll stick with commercials. How can you not hate their obsession with freaking commercials? And don't even get me started on that advertising BS at the bottom of the screen while the show is going on. Now THAT'S torture.

[bigred]

You know, I've never seen you admonish AQ's techniques:Because they aren't American. duh. Why do you hate on Al Q? PS I didn't even see (cue suspense music) WATERBOARDING (cue women screaming) on that list, so who cares?

Racist.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Glad you agree that AQ are the bad guys.

Maybe you'd like to join the fight against them one day?


If by 'fight' you mean keeping untried people including children in legal limbo for years without access to legal rights, erecting concentration camps and torturing people, illegally kidnapping people and transporting them to secret gulags for torture by proxy, then no. I believe in international law.

My wider family are already engaged in fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan. I don't need your sick comments to make me do anything.

[Pardalis]

If by 'fight' you mean keeping untried people including children in legal limbo for years without access to legal rights, erecting concentration camps and torturing people, illegally kidnapping people and transporting them to secret gulags for torture by proxy, then no. I believe in international law.

My wider family are already engaged in fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan. I don't need your sick comments to make me do anything.

I've just shown you detainment standards being improved in camp Bucca and you still find a way to twist this around and foam at the mouth against America?

You see, this is the difference between us and them, we can improve on our mistakes, they will never.

[bigred]

I would also point out that the article mentions a document known as the Manchester Document that has been identified as an Al Qaeda training manual. It specifically directs members to, if they are captured, claim that they were tortured or mistreated while detained. The document is available in its entirety on the Department of Justice website (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm). Perhaps, instead of always crying torture based on the word of detainess who have been SPECIFICALLY TOLD to lie if captured, we should take their word with a huge honkin' shaker of salt and realize that the mainstream media exaggerates and distorts items such as this to sell their stories.

And speaking as a US Military member myself, I can state quite clearly that, if a soldier feels an order is unlawful, they are absolutely allowed to refuse to carry such an order out.

My two cents.
Oh stop oppressin with your GW right-wing propergander already. These are victims who are being waterboarded by the american nazi military and everybody knows it!

[E.J.Armstrong]

Because they aren't American. duh. Why do you hate on Al Q? PS I didn't even see (cue suspense music) WATERBOARDING (cue women screaming) on that list, so who cares?

Racist.

When did you stop torturing your wife?

PS The good ol' US military had a name for waterboarding. They called it water torture. Oh no - the US military in the Vietnam war was anti-american.

John McCain condemns water torture as torture. Oh no. He is clearly anti-american.

'...Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War. ...' from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Oh no. All those US generals were anti-american.

So many people anti-torture. Even international law is against torture. Oh no. International law is anti-american.

'... Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, concurred by stating, in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he believes waterboarding violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. ...' from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Oh no. The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency is against water torture. He must be anti-american.

[E.J.Armstrong]

I've just shown you detainment standards being improved in camp Bucca and you still find a way to twist this around and foam at the mouth against America?

You see, this is the difference between us and them, we can improve on our mistakes, they will never.

I actually believe in the rule of law and actually congratulated the commander of the base for getting good information without resorting to breaking international law in not torturing people. The other things that I quoted are what the USA has done in contempt of international law and apparently simply pointing them out makes you foam at the mouth.

What mistakes are you talking about? Torture? Sorry, but your president still insists on his right to break international law and torture whoever he wants, whenever he wants.

When are you going to close the Guantanamo Bay gulag? When are you going to stop incarcerating people indefinitely without limit of time or proper legal representation?

When you support international law instead of showing such contempt for it you might be believed.

[Pardalis]

The other things that I quoted are what the USA has done in contempt of international law and apparently simply pointing them out makes you foam at the mouth.

That's the only thing you ever do, it's like an obsession.

You can't expect this global fight against islamic terrorism to be perfect, ultimately the goal is to stop them, the goal of a war is to win it.

[Normal Dude]

Just to offer the other side of the coin...

The March 07 copy of Soldiers Magazine (http://www.army.mil/publications/soldiersmagazine/pdfs/mar07all.pdf) details the treatment the Gitmo detainees receive... and the treatment they offer to their guards in return.

In contrast...

I would also point out that the article mentions a document known as the Manchester Document that has been identified as an Al Qaeda training manual. It specifically directs members to, if they are captured, claim that they were tortured or mistreated while detained. The document is available in its entirety on the Department of Justice website (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm). Perhaps, instead of always crying torture based on the word of detainess who have been SPECIFICALLY TOLD to lie if captured, we should take their word with a huge honkin' shaker of salt and realize that the mainstream media exaggerates and distorts items such as this to sell their stories.

And speaking as a US Military member myself, I can state quite clearly that, if a soldier feels an order is unlawful, they are absolutely allowed to refuse to carry such an order out.

My two cents.

I'd like to add to this. Several detainees that my unit held and then released told everyone that we had tortured and beat them. Never mind that they had been in my sight the entire time and nothing of the sort happened.

In a separate incident, one of our soldiers butt-stroked a detainee (hit him with a rifle). He was immediately taken to the rear and court-martialed.

Just two data points, for what it is worth. Don't take everything you hear at face value.

[E.J.Armstrong]

That's the only thing you ever do, it's like an obsession.

You can't expect this global fight against islamic terrorism to be perfect, ultimately the goal is to stop them, the goal of a war is to win it.

Rubbish. Not only that but you failed to provide one word of mine to support your lie. I congratulated a US prison commander for getting good information without having to resort to breaking international law. I have also congratulated all decent US citizens who are against torture and especially those who put their jobs on the line in doing so.

I expect the US to obey the law it claims to be fighting for. If you refuse to obey the law what differentiates you from the 'bad' guys?

It is the height of hypocrisy for Bush and his administration to lecture any country on behaving within the law when his government shows such contempt for that same law.

[Sabrina]

Wow... I've never been ignored when I completely opposed a viewpoint like that... huh. First for me. Thanks E.J. Now how's about you address my point that you seem to blindly accept whatever the MSM tells you without even bothering to look at the other side of the coin, hmmm?

[Pardalis]

Not only that but you failed to provide one word of mine to support your lie.

What lie?

[JimBenArm]

Glad you clarified that point of law for me. I suppose asking Bush to obey international law would be too much?
I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you over the screams of the people I'm torturing. Could you repeat the question?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Wow... I've never been ignored when I completely opposed a viewpoint like that... huh. First for me. Thanks E.J. Now how's about you address my point that you seem to blindly accept whatever the MSM tells you without even bothering to look at the other side of the coin, hmmm?

When you make it claim it is you who needs to support your claim - not me. Hows about you actually provide some words of mine to support your claim? Hmmm?

[E.J.Armstrong]

What lie?


This lie '...That's the only thing you ever do...'

You don't even know when you're making things up? Wow.

[E.J.Armstrong]

I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you over the screams of the people I'm torturing. Could you repeat the question?

You demonised?

PS Do you think Bush should stop torturing people?

[lordofwaffles]

I think it'd be awesome if Bush started torturing people. He'd finally start to kind of, just a little, live up to his Bushhitler reputation he's seemed to have earned somehow.

However, JimBenArm, I must remind you that the DoD requires the use of hearing protection in all high decibel environments.

Safety starts with you!

[JimBenArm]

You demonised?

PS Do you think Bush should stop torturing people?
You'll have to speak up. These people are so freaking loud!

Butch topped ordering what?

[Darth Rotor]

You'll have to speak up. These people are so freaking loud!

Butch topped ordering what?
Corn dogs. Laura has him on a diet again. (She's allowing pretzels, so I'd keep an eye on how sizeable his life insurance policy is, eh?)

DR

[Pardalis]

This lie '...That's the only thing you ever do...'

You don't even know when you're making things up? Wow.

That's not a lie, that's my opinion.

Man you're nuts.

[Polaris]

You're quite right but they do support torture by providing bases and facilities.

Since when has illegal behaviour by others been the green light for torture by the US?

My point in posting that list was several-fold. One, to point out that the "torture" you decry is sunshine and rainbows compared to what the enemy has done and is acting to do again. And I take pride in not being so far gone that I consider words like "enemy" and "victory" to be bad things.

Call me old-fashioned, jingoistic, I don't really give a dromedary's dumper except that criticism by you tells me I'm still on the side of right, as opposed to wrong/Islamic fundamentalist.

Two: your bare-bones minimal condemnation of the things done on that list and the people who do them stands in marked contrast to your unceasing assault on the people who are fighting against them. I find this disturbing to hear from anybody in the West who could just as easily be vaporized by a car bomb set off by a jihadi as a "Zionist-Imperialist" or whatever boogeyman among us they've conned you into believing in. And when I say "they", I mean the enemy.

And Pardalis, my feet are bigger! :D

[BPSCG]

Wow... I've never been ignored when I completely opposed a viewpoint like that... huh. First for me. Thanks E.J. The fact that he could ignore a post from someone whose avatar looks like this...
http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar18440_5.gif
...is proof enough for me that E.J. has driven his brain completely over a cliff.

[RandFan]

EJ,

Was Bush a torturer to the extent that Churchill was a mass murderer (Dresden)?
Was Bush a torturer to the extent that Truman was a mass murderer (Hiroshima and Nagasaki)?
Was Bush a torturer to the extent that Clinton was a murderer (Yugoslavia)?

Or are you inconsistent in your judgment?

[fagin]

The fact that he could ignore a post from someone whose avatar looks like this...
http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar18440_5.gif
...is proof enough for me that E.J. has driven his brain completely over a cliff.
I keep avatars switched off but thanks for that.

[Darth Rotor]

You demonised?

PS Do you think Bush should stop torturing people?
Please go back and read Normal Dude's post at the bottom of page 4.

This is a bit of pedantry, but you will be hard pressed to find evidence that Bush tortured anyone. You can argue that he authorized torture (waterboarding) of someone, and know that the CIA director confirmed that for certain three detainees were given that treatment, but showing that Bush tortured anyone does not stand up.

Of course, his torturing of the English language is supported by mountains of evidence, but I don't think that is your main complaint.

DR