Is it torture if you only burn the soles of their feet?

[Michael Tee]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060925/ap_on_re_as/afghan_prisoner_abuse

Two more guys tortured to death by Green Berets.  Well this one only came to light three years after the fact.  Pretty poor cover-up job, I'd say.  Some a this shit won't come to light for 30 years.  Yesterday it didn't exist because there was no evidence.  Cover-ups don't happen.  What you can't see does not exist.  More left wing smears of our noble troops.  Today it's not a smear based on non-existent evidence, so a new neutralizing formula has to be found - - it's only two.  A tiny fraction.  What are just two guys tortured to death?

Where's sirs?  sirs, isn't it about time to post yet another cartoon about how "barbaric" the "Islamofascists" are?  Don't you have to make the point that THEY are the barbarians and not America?  America only roasts the soles of prisoners' feet (as they are being beaten to death) but Islamofascists BEHEAD.  Easy to see who the real barbarians are, eh sirs?  You are so full of shit.
 
As long as the Army can cover it up, it doesn't exist.  When it can't be covered up, it's an "aberration."   They're ALL "aberrations" - - every single one of them - - no matter how many surface.  When will you get it through your heads that ONE IS TOO MANY?  It's SIXTY YEARS after the end of WWII and there has not been a single case found where American, British or Canadian troops beat prisoners to death, let alone burned their feet first.  Not only are you looking at the tip of an iceberg - - only a moron would believe that the Army doesn't make HUGE efforts to cover up every one of these - - but it seems like you will refuse to acknowledge there is a problem unless it can be demonstrated that virtually every single prisoner is tortured or murdered.  Ten aren't enough.  A hundred aren't enough.  A thousand aren't enough.

I really don't know how you people who support this can stand to look in a mirror.  What will it take to make you realize who you are supporting and what they are doing?

[sirs]

Yes.  Next question

[Michael Tee]

<<Yes.[it's torture if you only burn the soles of their feet]  Next question>>

Next question, obviously, is how can you continue to support this shit?  What the fuck is WRONG with you?

[sirs]

Next question, obviously, is how can you continue to support this shit?

Did you miss the part where I said I don't support the burning of feet??         Now, care to show me how this an Adminstrative supported practice, so that I can then actually not support the Administration???

[Michael Tee]

I'd say you support it by (a) denying it happens till it can't be denied any more (2) trivializing the issue by framing it as often as you can get away with it in terms of playing loud music and similar examples of harassment falling short of torture (3) trivializing it in terms of frequency (it's one prisoner of thousands) (4) attacking as often as you can those who protest against torture, depicting them without exception as protesting trivial forms of harassment rather than protesting real torture, with the intent of ridiculing anyone protesting torture . . .

I dunno, it's getting late and I've got to knock off.  I know I've only demonstrated four ways that you support torture, I know there's plenty more but I gotta quit now, sorry.

[sirs]

I'd say you support it by (a) denying it happens till it can't be denied any more (2) trivializing the issue by framing it as often as you can get away with it in terms of playing loud music and similar examples of harassment falling short of torture (3) trivializing it in terms of frequency

And I'd say you're wrong, based on the fact I've made it clear that I DON'T

[Michael Tee]

<<And I'd say you're wrong, based on the fact I've made it clear that I DON'T [support torture.]>>

And I'd say that you're just like your "President" (you'd probably take that as a compliment) in ignoring all the evidence to the contrary and continuing to deny that you do what you are in fact doing.

[sirs]

And I'd say as ususal, your credibility means nothing to you, as you imply I (and the President) are liars based on your apparent ability to read minds, as you have yet to provide any "evidence to the contrary", merely your accusatory innuendo based on nothing more than speculations.  Whatever makes you feel superior, Tee     

[Michael Tee]

The facts speak for themselves, sirs - - your posts on the subject of torture invariably ridicule the protestors by misrepresentating the subject of their protests (lack of five-star luxury hotel accommodations for the prisoners is a typical theme,) ridicule the idea of torture by equating it with such things as sexual humiliation and sleep deprivation (which actually can result in permanent psychiatric damage, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are referring to less extreme forms) and continually shrug it off as involving at most a tiny fraction of the US troops involved.

But that's innuendo based on nothing more than speculation?  Only if you are determined to ignore common sense and real life.  In real life, sirs, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and  quacks like a duck . . . it's a duck.  So don't worry about MY credibility, sirs, it's alive and doing well, unlike some.  And you say you DON'T support torture, eh?  Interesting . . . 

[sirs]

The facts speak for themselves, sirs

No, that would be your Bush-is-a-moronic-version-of-Hitler pure speculation speaks to you personally.  And FYI, your mind reading ability really sucks 

[Michael Tee]

<<No, that would be your Bush-is-a-moronic-version-of-Hitler pure speculation speaks to you personally. >>

Well-put.  Bush IS a moronic (and extremely cowardly) version of Hitler.  One more example of what I meant when I said that the facts speak for themselves.

 <<And FYI, your mind reading ability really sucks  >>

Well, if I ever claimed mind-reading ability, I would be deeply offended.  I would never claim mind-reading ability, if only because I don't have to read minds.  I just let people speak for themselves and after awhile they tell you whatever a mind-reader could have learned.

[Lanya]

Two things to read:
[]

The White House's Dan Bartlett put it best, and most accurately, when he said: "We proposed a more direct approach to bringing clarification. This one is more of the scenic route, but it gets us there." Only the Bush administration could speak of taking a "scenic route" to torture. But Bartlett's description, creepy and chilling though it may be, is not mere spin designed to make a compromising president look triumphant. Bush, in fact, did triumph and did not compromise in any meaningful sense, because the only goal he had -- to ensure that his "alternative interrogation program" would continue -- was fulfilled in its entirety as a result of this "compromise" (with the added bonus that it will even be strengthened by legal authorization from Congress).
[]
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/09/22/torture_compromise/index.html

and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514.html
[]

Republican lawmakers and the White House agreed over the weekend to alter new legislation on military commissions to allow the United States to detain and try a wider range of foreign nationals than an earlier version of the bill permitted, according to government sources.

[...]

As a result, human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week's version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators. That version incorporated a definition backed by the Senate dissidents: those "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

The new provision, which would cover captives held by the CIA, is more expansive than the one incorporated by the Defense Department on Sept. 5 in new rules that govern the treatment of detainees in military custody. The military's definition of unlawful combatants covers only "those who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws of war and customs of war during an armed conflict."
[]

[sirs]

Well-put.  Bush IS a moronic (and extremely cowardly) version of Hitler.

I rest my case