<<Which [Abu Ghraib and Baghram Base] of course, were NOT [torture chambers], since they were largely instances of prisoner abuse. and whatever abuse or "torture" were performed, the perpetrators were prosecuted for such. Lame try, as usual, so so much for the "other than" attempt>>
Fascinating. The lexicography of the pathological fascist "mind" is hard at work. "Torture" is not torture, it is "prisoner abuse." Note also the subtle shift of issue away from torture (or in the fascist lexicography, away from not-torture) and into the issue of punishment for, uh, for "not-torture," as if - - and here you really get to see the utter lunacy of the fascist "mind" at work - - as if the very nature of the criminal act itself could be re-defined by the punishment that attended it. O.J., for example, is a murderer, but would not have been a murderer had he been punished for his act. Ted Bundy, OTOH, was definitely NOT a murderer because he was punished (and unlike Amerikkkan torturers, really punished) for his actions. Undsoweiter.
One could of course question whether the laughably insignificant "punishments" handed down in the relatively few instances of what sirs likes to call "prisoner abuse" that even go to trial are evidence of anything other than criminal intent on the part of the military brass, just as one could question whether a short term of "house arrest" for the massacre of over 800 Vietnames was not final proof of the criminality of the Amerikkkan military.
But because I'm a reasonable guy, I'm going to concede sirs' point that the U.S. did not operate "torture" chambers. It operated "siccing attack dogs on helpless naked prisoner" chambers, it operated "anal rape" chambers, it operated "smothering guys to death in sleeping bags" chambers and it operated "pulping legs and buttocks until the poor guy dies" chambers, and of course it operated (and still operates) "waterboarding" chambers, but it DID NOT operate torture chambers.
Operating torture chambers would have been EVIL, and of course, the United States is not evil. (We know that because sirs keeps repeating it so many times that it must be true. U.S. NOT EVIL, U.S. NOT EVIL . . . . )
I also love the "lack of evidence" that sirs is always nattering on about. There are, in real life, varying circumstances that can surround a lack of evidence. In the case of Abu Ghraib, for example, it is not really appropriate to talk of a "lack of evidence" of torture. Actually, there is a CONCEALMENT of evidence rather than a lack thereof. Of the approximately 1,100 photos and videos confiscated by military authorities, less than 10% have ever been released to the public to date, and virtually all of those were the ones obtained by reporter Seymour Hirsh when the story broke. IMHO, concealment of evidence, as in Abu Ghraib, or even the very existence of the secret torture chambers and the flights ferrying Amerikkka's prisoners to them, is powerful evidence of guilt.
So what have I concluded?
1. Amerikkka did operate torture chambers in secret.
2. Amerikkka probably still does operate torture chambers, only in heightened secrecy because of the exposure risks.
3. Amerikkka sends prisoners to other countries to be tortured there.
4. The Amerikkkan leaders know they are committing crimes because they make such great attempts to hide them and because they foolishly believe it can't be a crime if they allow someone else to do the deed. (It's like throwing a child into a lion's den and arguing, "I didn't kill her, the LIONS killed her." But it's a good enough subterfuge for sirs and others like him.)
5. Amerikkka is definitely an evil country. Very, very evil. (Sorry, sirs)
