U.N. report: U.S. committed acts 'amounting to torture' at Gitmo

[flavio]

Never said that. As usual, the obvious escapes you...

Go ahead and spit out the point then.

Your quote, not mine. If you didn't agree with it, you shouldn't have posted it...

What you said had nothing to do with whether I agreed with the quote now did it.

Whats the matter? Can't find where they weren't punished, so you claim its unsubstantiated? Shows a complete lack of insight on military justice...In fact, the only proof you posted on the cold water torture was unsubstantiated as well. Too bad you didn't notice that in your rush to judgement.

You made a claim without supporting it with ANY evidence. I posted a quote from a third party and linked it. See the difference...normal forum "post your source" type of stuff.

Wikipedia.com...

That's all you got? Attack a source that's regularly used here?

You still haven't posted anything like that coming from the US government, have you? It's been all innuendo and opinion...and any substantiated cases were punished according to your source, joke that it is...

I think that's more than enough examples of an absence of punishment. Considering you provide no counter evidence.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Go ahead and spit out the point then.

No need. Everybody else got it...

What you said had nothing to do with whether I agreed with the quote now did it.

Once again...your quote, not mine.

You made a claim without supporting it with ANY evidence. I posted a quote from a third party and linked it. See the difference...normal forum "post your source" type of stuff.

I made a claim about your source because that source was based on opinion. No corroborating evidence=speculation.

That's all you got? Attack a source that's regularly used here?

and regularly lambasted as well...

I think that's more than enough examples of an absence of punishment. Considering you provide no counter evidence.

I see quite a few of those were dismissed...lack of evidence, perhaps? If the claims were investigated and dismissed that's exactly why they would be. As for the discharges...trust me...that's a punishment. Not as strict as you, personally, would like, but it is a punishment. Of course, you wouldn't understand that because you have no frame of reference for that, would you?

One more thing. If you choose to argue with someone in the military about military justice, when you have no idea how it works, you'll lose every time.

 

[flavio]

No need. Everybody else got it...

Yes, apparently there wasn't one if you're going to cop out like that.

Once again...your quote, not mine.

Once again what you professed I believe was not part of the quote.

I made a claim about your source because that source was based on opinion. No corroborating evidence=speculation.

That's right you claimed someone had been punished without providing corroborating evidence. Therefore your claim was speculation. I provided evidence for my statement.

and regularly lambasted as well...

Gonz uses it and said it was an accepted source. I don't see the problem. You're just trying to discount a couple dozen examples without any counter evidence at all.

I see quite a few of those were dismissed...lack of evidence, perhaps? If the claims were investigated and dismissed that's exactly why they would be. As for the discharges...trust me...that's a punishment. Not as strict as you, personally, would like, but it is a punishment. Of course, you wouldn't understand that because you have no frame of reference for that, would you?

Yeah, my frame of reference says getting excused from the military is hardly punishment for torture or murder.

One more thing. If you choose to argue with someone in the military about military justice, when you have no idea how it works, you'll lose every time.

If you choose to argue with someone that has a sense of justice when you have no idea how it works you will lose every time.

 

[catocom]

Yes, apparently there wasn't one if you're going to cop out like that.

I'll Try to help you comprehend this one Flav.
Look back at ALL those highlighted letters, and imagine the word "bunkers"
is not highlighted.
Could you understand then?

 

[flavio]

Ok....point was you can torture people if the bunker is owned by the Iraqi government?

 

[catocom]

no, no no,....
The POINT is that the Iraqis ran it.

Now you might have a point if you say we should have checked in on them sooner.

I Can believe you didn't get that, but I don't understand why.
You complain about other people not being open-minded, but your mind is
so closed, and bias apparently, that you couldn't get that.
That's the only conclusion I can draw...

 

[flavio]

So you're saying you know for a fact that the US had nothing to do with it?

If so, did you miss all the other examples?

 

[catocom]

Hey, I'm merely pointing out what that was saying that Gato posted.

I don't know, but I'm guessing that, Yeah the US is denying that they knew.
I haven't followed that story, and don't care to comment on it farther myself.
You'd need to ask someone that knows the situation better.

 

[flavio]

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 22 (AP) — The longest sentence for any member of the American military linked to a torture-related death of a detainee in Iraq or Afghanistan has been five months, a human rights group reported Wednesday.

In only 12 of 34 cases has anyone been punished for the confirmed or suspected killings, said the group, Human Rights First, which is based in New York and Washington.

Beyond those cases, in almost half of 98 known detainee deaths since 2002, the cause was never announced or was reported as undetermined.

"In dozens of cases documented here, grossly inadequate reporting, investigation and follow-through have left no one at all responsible for homicides and other unexplained deaths," it said in the report, based on military court records, news reports and other sources.

 

[catocom]

a human rights group reported

Sounds like more propaganda to me. They won't even say who they are.
The NYTimes is very questionable these days.

 

[flavio]

Read one sentence further and quit making excuses.

 

[catocom]

I read the whole article man.
When you put things in there that wide open, it becomes commentary, not reporting.

How true it is, is beside the point at that point. Unless it can be "proven".

If those people are willing to testify, they should bring formal charges.

 

[Gonz]

The NYTimes is very questionable these days.

These days? THESE days?.

NY TIMES
Only the news we filter to print
Controlling your information for over 150 years

 

[Gato_Solo]

Yes, apparently there wasn't one if you're going to cop out like that.

Guess you missed those R.I.F. commercials they used to play between the cartoons, eh?

Once again what you professed I believe was not part of the quote.

Then you don't even understand what you posted...

That's right you claimed someone had been punished without providing corroborating evidence. Therefore your claim was speculation. I provided evidence for my statement.

Where was that evidence? I saw none. Just a third-hand report from the exact same person you pilloried for the WMD reports. Now what could that smell be?

Gonz uses it and said it was an accepted source. I don't see the problem. You're just trying to discount a couple dozen examples without any counter evidence at all.

And that makes it a true and correct? Even though it was posted, not too long ago, that story about Wikipedia being non-accurate?

Yeah, my frame of reference says getting excused from the military is hardly punishment for torture or murder.

Try getting a job with any discharge less than 'Honorable"...but you wouldn't understand that, would you? You have no clue, and it shows to just about every military, and prior military, member on the board. It even shows to military 'brats' that you have no idea what you're talking about...

If you choose to argue with someone that has a sense of justice when you have no idea how it works you will lose every time.

And who might that be? You've already proven that your entire argument is nothing more than speculation and innuendo. Now all that's left is your damage control. Have fun.

 

[Gonz]

I use it because its close, simple & there. Had I cared to pay attention to an article I presented some time back I'd have known better.

The best known Wiki site, www.wikipedia.org, is an online encyclopedia created entirely by visitors who have voluntarily written nearly 140,000 articles, on subjects ranging from astronomy to Roman mythology. Any Wikipedia user who thinks he has spotted an error or wants to add information can modify the article. Unlike at a standard encyclopedia operation, there is no central authority to edit or reject articles.

I'll still use it as a source of general info but it is not a reliable credible source.

 

[flavio]

Then you don't even understand what you posted...

Damn man! If you don't get it this time I'm going to have to resort to visual aids....

1. Original quote from Chief of Staff Colonel Lawrence:

"[The President's memorandum said] the spirit of Geneva would be adhered to... consistent with military necessity. [...] It did not say 'consistent with national security demands.' It did not say 'consistent with the demands of the war on terror.' It said 'consistent with military needs.' Now, military needs are very simple and clear to a man like me who spent 31 years in the military. It means that if one of my buddy's life is threatened or my life is threatened, I can take drastic action. I can even shoot a detainee. And I can expect not to be punished under Geneva, or at least if I am court-martialed, I have a defense. It doesn't mean that I can take a detainee in a cold, dark cell in Bagram, Afghanistan, for example, in December 2002, shackled to the wall, and pour cold water on him at intervals when the outside temperature is 50 degrees anyway, and eventually kill him, which is what happened."

2. Gato: I believe you are one of the formost objectors to shooting a detainee regardless of provocation. Even though you haven't come right out and said it, your posts all imply it.
note: see, you took part a quote I posted, added something onto it, and attributed it as a belief of mine.

3. flavio: Usual tactic of attributing things to me that I didn't say.
note: meaning I have never said I object to shooting a detainee regardless of provocation.

4. Gato: Your quote, not mine. If you didn't agree with it, you shouldn't have posted it...
note: the quote said nothing about objecting to shooting a detainee without provocation....you did. Therefore there is no implication that I agree with what you added.

5. flavio: What you said had nothing to do with whether I agreed with the quote now did it.
note: What you said being "I believe you are one of the formost objectors to shooting a detainee regardless of provocation" which has nothing to do with whether I agree with the quote because the idea is not part of the quote.

6. Gato: Once again...your quote, not mine.
note: The part you are attributing to me came from you...no the quote.

7. flavio: Once again what you professed I believe was not part of the quote.
note: How much clearer can I even make the sentence above?

8. Gato: Then you don't even understand what you posted...
note: I understand what I posted but the simple idea that you can't just make up things and then attribute them as my beliefs has completely escaped you so far.

Is this simple idea getting through yet? I'll draw diagrams if needed.

Where was that evidence? I saw none. Just a third-hand report from the exact same person you pilloried for the WMD reports. Now what could that smell be?

Another simple idea keeps escaping you here...

Gato's claim: "The persons in charge and the persons carrying out this act were duly punished"
note: After being asked for proof several times this claim is still supported by no evidence whatsoever.

flavio's claim: Gato askes "Let me know when you can find something that was waived or ignored". flavio replies "Here's few..............."
note: gives a couple dozen examples and later a link with supporting information in an AP article from another site.

You go on to say "No corroborating evidence=speculation" even though I have provided two aources and a couple dozen examples....while you have provided NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for your claim.

And that makes it a true and correct? Even though it was posted, not too long ago, that story about Wikipedia being non-accurate?

Sure doesn't make it incorrect. I added another AP article. What is it that you still dispute at this point?

Try getting a job with any discharge less than 'Honorable"...but you wouldn't understand that, would you?

You don't seem to be able to read and understand most of them still got honerable discharges. If they got dishonerable having a little trouble getting a job hardly seem like punishment for torture or murder.

They could always omit their military experience from an application anyway.

You have no clue, and it shows to just about every military, and prior military, member on the board. It even shows to military 'brats' that you have no idea what you're talking about...

Looks obvious at this point that you are the one with no clue. Again, I'll use visual aids and diagram you a clue if you still need it after this.

 

[flavio]

I read the whole article man.
When you put things in there that wide open, it becomes commentary, not reporting.

How true it is, is beside the point at that point. Unless it can be "proven".

If those people are willing to testify, they should bring formal charges.

Then you should have seen in the next sentence they named the human rights group.

 

[catocom]

Then you should have seen in the next sentence they named the human rights group.

Oh, I missed that.
OK, then it makes it even less credible. They are as bad as PITA, ACLU, and several other
groups that might have been a good thing 'Once', but lost credibility due to extremism.

 

[flavio]

What is the extremism that effects what they've said here?

I think you just aren't going to believe it at all no matter what the source because it's not what you want to hear.

The NYTimes is very questionable these days.

Blame them not naming the group, blame the New York Times.....I'll point out they named the group and it's an AP article and you'll come up with some other cop out.

 

[catocom]

Somebody said that somebody said they saw something.

It's all here-say.
Did they get any picture or some-kinda proof other than tier word?

No, I'm not going to believe it because there's no proof. Whether it's what
I want to hear or no is irrelevant, if there's proof. If there is no proof, then
yeah, I'll pick what I want to believe.