Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

We're going to be good Detainers nowFollow

#1 Sep 06 2006 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good
Linky

The Liberal Media wrote:
Pentagon issues new guidelines on detainees, interrogations
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A new Army manual bans some prisoner interrogation techniques made infamous during the five-year-old war on terror, officials said Wednesday.

Delayed more than a year amid criticism of the Defense Department's treatment of prisoners, the new Army Field Manual was set to be released later Wednesday.

It spells out appropriate conduct and procedures on a wide range of military issues and applies to all the armed services, not just the Army. It doesn't cover the CIA, which also has come under investigation for mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and for allegedly keeping suspects in secret prisons elsewhere around the world since the September 11, 2001, attacks.

There has been an outcry about prisoner rights since shortly after those attacks.

Human rights groups and some nations have urged the Bush administration to close the prison at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since shortly after it opened in 2002 with prisoners from the campaign against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Scrutiny of U.S. treatment of prisoners shot to a new level in 2004 with the release of photos showing U.S. troops beating, intimidating and sexually abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq -- and then again with news of secret facilities.

Though defense officials said earlier this year that they were debating writing a classified section of the manual to keep some interrogation procedures a secret from potential enemies, officials said Wednesday that there is no secret section to the new manual.

The Pentagon also on Wednesday released a new policy directive on detention operations that says the handling of prisoners must -- at a minimum -- abide by the standards of the Geneva Conventions and lays out the responsibilities of senior civilian and military officials who oversee detention operations.

The new Army manual specifically forbids intimidating prisoners with military dogs, putting hoods over their heads and simulating the sensation of drowning with a procedure called "water boarding," one defense official said on condition of anonymity because the manual had not yet been released.

Sixteen of the manual's 19 interrogation techniques were covered in the old manual and three new ones were added on the basis of lessons learned in the counter-terror war, the official said, adding only that the techniques are "not more aggressive" than those in the pre-9/11 manual.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said from the start of the war that prisoners are treated humanely and in a manner "consistent with Geneva Conventions."

But President Bush decided shortly after the 9/11 attacks that because this is not a conventional war, "enemy combatants" captured in the fight against al Qaeda would not be considered POWs and thus would not be afforded the protections of the convention.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Wednesday that the new Army manual "reflects the department's continued commitment to humane, professional and effective detention operations and builds on lessons learned and a review of detention operations."


Riddle me this! Is this their way of complying the with SJC ruling over the summer, or their way of trying to get those poll numbers up before the election season?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#2 Sep 06 2006 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,189 posts
Quote:
Riddle me this! Is this their way of complying the with SJC ruling over the summer, or their way of trying to get those poll numbers up before the election season?


No, its called putting it in paper rather than just telling the "detainers." Now, theres no reason they can say they were never told, or they weren't aware of the parameters, etc; they can say I never read the manual in which case it will be their fault only, not those in charge of the said individual.
#3 Sep 06 2006 at 10:06 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The Liberal Media wrote:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said from the start of the war that prisoners are treated humanely and in a manner "consistent with Geneva Conventions."

But President Bush decided shortly after the 9/11 attacks that because this is not a conventional war, "enemy combatants" captured in the fight against al Qaeda would not be considered POWs and thus would not be afforded the protections of the convention.


Can anyone spot the false dilemma fallacy in those two paragraphs?

Anyone?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4 Sep 07 2006 at 9:51 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sigh. Either no one can, or no one wants to admit they can...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5 Sep 07 2006 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nah, I just chuckled at the irony of you ******** about false dilemmas and moved on.

I bet if it was on FOX News though I would have ******* plenty hard!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Sep 07 2006 at 10:10 PM Rating: Decent
Bush wants us to believe were not torturing detainees.

He also has beach front property to sell in the mountains of Colorado. I hear it is a nice, and flat piece of land.
#7 Sep 08 2006 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Rimesume the Shady wrote:
Bush wants us to believe were not torturing detainees.


And you want to believe that we are. The only difference is that Bush actually knows what's going on there, and you dont.

See the problem you have?


The Red Cross has been stationed on the base at Gitmo from almost day one. That organization has never released any official statement declaring the treatment of detainees as "torture". Of course, that didn't stop the mass media from reporting on a "leak" of a memo stating otherwise, but again, who should we believe? The official statements from the Red Cross? Or a leaked memo of unknown origin, claiming to be an internal Red Cross memo?


You want to believe that we're torturing people. And what's sad is that it's not that you want to believe so because of some kind of humanitarian concern, but purely because you don't like the Bush administration because they're the "other side" of the political spectrum. So you'll swallow any hint that there might be torture fully, while ignoring all official reports and findings.

That's rational? That's reasonable? Sorry. I don't think so. I think that's wishful thinking. It's rhetoric. If you repeat "Bush is torturing prisoners" enough time, maybe people will believe it, and maybe that'll help "your side" win an election or two. Let's not let little things like truth and facts get in the way of wild speculation though. That would just be silly...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Sep 08 2006 at 10:01 PM Rating: Good
How dare you presume to know why I want to believe we're torturing people. I have my reasons, and they're personal.
#9 Sep 08 2006 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:
How dare you presume to know why I want to believe we're torturing people. I have my reasons, and they're personal.


Does it have something to do with the dungeon downstairs, the leather straps and whips, and a really long impossible to say "safe word"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Sep 08 2006 at 10:53 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:
How dare you presume to know why I want to believe we're torturing people. I have my reasons, and they're personal.


Does it have something to do with the dungeon downstairs, the leather straps and whips, and a really long impossible to say "safe word"?


FUcking perv.
#11 Sep 09 2006 at 1:30 AM Rating: Good
****
6,730 posts
gbaji wrote:
Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:
How dare you presume to know why I want to believe we're torturing people. I have my reasons, and they're personal.


Does it have something to do with the dungeon downstairs, the leather straps and whips, and a really long impossible to say "safe word"?


OMG! gbaji tried to make a funny come back ...and actualy nearly seceded. Is it possible, has he figured out we come here to be entertained and not bored with page long retorts filled with hair splitting and delusion?


Nah, I think Bhodi stole his account. The HAXX0R!
#12 Sep 09 2006 at 2:58 AM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
Rimesume the Shady wrote:
Bush wants us to believe were not torturing detainees.


And you want to believe that we are. The only difference is that Bush actually knows what's going on there, and you dont.

See the problem you have?


Just like he knew there were WMD in Iraq... right?


#13 Sep 09 2006 at 5:50 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Rimesume the Shady wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Rimesume the Shady wrote:
Bush wants us to believe were not torturing detainees.


And you want to believe that we are. The only difference is that Bush actually knows what's going on there, and you dont.

See the problem you have?


Just like he knew there were WMD in Iraq... right?



And a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
#14 Sep 09 2006 at 9:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rimesume the Shady wrote:
Just like he knew there were WMD in Iraq... right?
Dude, we totally know where the WMD locations are. They're to the south and to the east and to the west.

Rumsfeld said so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 374 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (374)