New Army documents reveal US knew of and approved torture before Abu Ghraib scandal

[DOGG]

New Army documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union today reveal that Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez ordered interrogators to "go to the outer limits" to get information from detainees. The documents also show that senior government officials were aware of abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/New_Army_documents_reveal_US_knew_0502.html

[Spades]

to "go to the outer limits"

what he meant was to the outer limits of the speeding zone - eg not to go over 70 kph

[IamSpartacus]

Hmmmm .... if a normal practice was to beat a detainee to within "...an inch of his life ..." then Sanchez's new direction would mean you could beat a detainee to "... at least an inch after his death ...".

Cunts.

[Nodbugger]

again, crap source.

[Scythe]

again, crap source.

So is it the article you're trashing without basis, or the three original documents linkned to in that article, which come straight from the ACLU?

[Up_All_Night]

noddy made the same claima while ago on another report about ACLU documents, even with all the government documents provided.

[Ic3]

again, crap source.


Again, crap poster!

[berserk]

Sen. McCarthy: You know the Civil Liberties Union has been listed as "a front for, and doing the work of," the Communist Party?

Good night, & Good luck (http://honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html)

[DOGG]

Noddy's called the ACLU terrorists previously. He questions their validity as well as that of the documents. Just ignore the braindead cocksmoker...

[Nodbugger]

Because the story is crap, the source that reports it is crap.

The documents in no way say torture detainees. They have phrases they can be strewed in many ways. And they happen to be strewing them in one way.

And are probably ignoring whole parts of the documents or other things released that work in conjunction with it.

Those "examples they provide are also their shit interpretations.

How the hell do you live someone by putting a button under their chin? For that to happen they had to have been doing something otherwise there neck would have just rotated up and the button would have fallen off.

Wikipedia says it is very difficult to fracture and normally it is due to strangulation.


Thew next one is also crap. Most guys they pick up are in bad shape BEFORE they ever get to the prison. Having to live on the run, not being able to live with all the amenities a non-criminal can live with. Not to mention their more than likely resistance when detained which could lead to many injuries. The guy in his own feces? Ever think he took a crap in the cell on purpose?

Police interrogate people after having to beat them and shock them with a taser after attempting to detain them. That isn't abuse.

Noe of these cases they provide are explicit cases of abuse that isn't circumstantial. They have no evidence on how or why the abuse took place.

[nrejones]

Spurious sourcing.

[Up_All_Night]

They have no evidence on how or why the abuse took place.

so you at least admit its abuse now? but its not wrong with out evidence? even though there is evidence

[Nodbugger]

so you at least admit its abuse now? but its not wrong with out evidence? even though there is evidence

Well it is abuse, but not illegal abuse. The injuries could have been sustained in capturing the person, how they could have happened when the person resisted after being detained, or the person attacked a guard. It is quite obvious most people leave the prisons without ever having being touched. Thousands have gone through them and we only hear of a handful of cases. This tells me that either A) those that are presented deserved it or B) They had vital information that needed to be had.

[Scythe]

Thousands have gone through them and we only hear of a handful of cases. This tells me that either A) those that are presented deserved it or B) They had vital information that needed to be had.

This tells me that they might be a little overzealous in putting people in prisons if thousands of people have gone through them and not been convicted of crimes.

[Nodbugger]

This tells me that they might be a little overzealous in putting people in prisons if thousands of people have gone through them and not been convicted of crimes.



Who said they didn't get convicted? Most of them were taken in when a fully functional court system wasn't in place and even if they did get convicted of something they wouldn't be outstanding crimes that would keep them there for a long amount of time. They figure they keep them there for a certain amount of time and release them depending on what they did.

[Javaxcx]

Who said they didn't get convicted?

Most of them were taken in when a fully functional court system wasn't in place

It's astounding how you can argue with yourself and not even be aware of it.
:owned:

Either that or you don't know what a conviction is.

[Nodbugger]

It's astounding how you can argue with yourself and not even be aware of it.
:owned:

Either that or you don't know what a conviction is.


And it is amazing how you can't read worth a shit.

Not fully functioning does not mean not functioning at all. Its called reading comprehension, idiot.

[CMYK]

...strewed... ...strewing...

WTF?

...after having to beat them and shock them with a taser after attempting to detain them. That isn't abuse.


WTF?


You are a great twunting cocksucker, Nodfucker.

[DOGG]

This tells me that they might be a little overzealous in putting people in prisons if thousands of people have gone through them and not been convicted of crimes.
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — The U.S. government released the most extensive list yet of the hundreds of detainees who have been held at the Guantanamo Bay prison -- nearly all labeled enemy combatants, but only a handful of whom have faced formal charges.

In all, 558 people were named in the list provided by the Pentagon on Wednesday in response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit.
[CUT]
Some names are familiar, such as David Hicks, a Muslim from Australia charged with fighting U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan. He is one of 10 detainees selected to be tried by a military tribunal, on charges of attempted murder, aiding the enemy and conspiracy to commit terrorism.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192382,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192382,00.html)

[Hairyman]

again, crap source.

Nope.

[Hairyman]

Well it is abuse, but not illegal abuse. The injuries could have been sustained in capturing the person, how they could have happened when the person resisted after being detained, or the person attacked a guard. It is quite obvious most people leave the prisons without ever having being touched. Thousands have gone through them and we only hear of a handful of cases. This tells me that either A) those that are presented deserved it or B) They had vital information that needed to be had.

Nice fairy story.

[berserk]

It could've been self inflicted to make America look bad. Those terrorist mutha fuckers will do anything i tell you, including flying a perfectly good airplane into a building.

[Javaxcx]

And it is amazing how you can't read worth a shit.

Not fully functioning does not mean not functioning at all. Its called reading comprehension, idiot.

Assuming you're right for once (even though you're really not because you've still got a hold of the english language compariable to a starfish), maybe you can provide some evidence of that? Bearing in mind of course, that any evidence you use for the preceding will ultimately come full circle and cause you to contradict yourself.

Again: :owned:

Stupid child.

[Nodbugger]

Assuming you're right for once (even though you're really not because you've still got a hold of the english language compariable to a starfish), maybe you can provide some evidence of that? Bearing in mind of course, that any evidence you use for the preceding will ultimately come full circle and cause you to contradict yourself.

Again: :owned:

Stupid child.



http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1050369446809

[Javaxcx]

Bearing in mind of course, that any evidence you use for the preceding will ultimately come full circle and cause you to contradict yourself.

Who said they didn't get convicted? Most of them were taken in when a fully functional court system wasn't in place and even if they did get convicted of something they wouldn't be outstanding crimes that would keep them there for a long amount of time. They figure they keep them there for a certain amount of time and release them depending on what they did.

I'd imagine that you totally misinterpreted the part of that article that said that the current broken system (of April 2003, a month after the invasion that crippled the nation) needed serious revamping because of lack of unified law-- call me a wishful thinker, but you're just so freaking stupid. Then I might figure that you'd believe that by establishing that Iraq was broken in 2003 (without actually realizing it, lol) you'd fortify the position that people were not convicted because the law didn't exist by your own admission.

What you have in those jails are predominantly detainees, Nodbugger. Not convicts. Once you realize there is a very, VERY important difference between the two, we can continue this.

[Hairyman]

He and his neocon mates have suspended haebeus corpus, largely because of spelling difficulties.

[Nodbugger]

I'd imagine that you totally misinterpreted the part of that article that said that the current broken system (of April 2003, a month after the invasion that crippled the nation) needed serious revamping because of lack of unified law-- call me a wishful thinker, but you're just so freaking stupid. Then I might figure that you'd believe that by establishing that Iraq was broken in 2003 (without actually realizing it, lol) you'd fortify the position that people were not convicted because the law didn't exist by your own admission.

What you have in those jails are predominantly detainees, Nodbugger. Not convicts. Once you realize there is a very, VERY important difference between the two, we can continue this.


You know who we had then? Soldiers, Iraqi soldiers who don't fall under that. By the time we started arresting civilians they had a court system in place to convict them. They were held for as long as they could be held and either released to go free, or released to a court so they could be found guilty or innocent.

[Javaxcx]

Wrong. There are people still being detained in Iraq. Hell, there are people being detained in America. They don't fall under the soldier status, or even the combatant status. They fall under the "suspicious persons" status. They are NOT convicts like you have been trying to purport. You cannot make any distinction between detainees and convicts, and you sure as hell can't start treating them the same; or as we have seen, far worse. Glad to know that you agree with me though that you've done nothing but argue in a circle and bang yourself in the colon.