U.S. Broadens Definition Of Torture

[blueturk]

All future prisoners of war will be relieved to hear this,I'm sure.



http:https://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....toryID=7212065

[Phil theStalker]

Re: U.S. Broadens Definition Of Torture

Originally posted by blueturk
All future prisoners of war will be relieved to hear this,I'm sure.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/10541975.htm

Right, and "they" didn't break any rules when that girl in Boston came out of that restaurant and got shot in the face dead with a "non-lethal" weapon.

I'm relieved.

Nothing wrong here, nothing wrong there, there's nothing wrong anywhere.

It's later than you think.

FORCAST: Death t2onight, more death t2omrrow


P

[blueturk]

Dammit, my link didn't work.The U.S. now says that a prisoner doesn't have to suffer excrutiating pain to be considered a victim of torture.Of course,this has nothing to do with the upcoming Gonzales hearings.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=721206 5

[DrMaddVibe]

Geneva what? Baw-ha-ha!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Geneva what? Baw-ha-ha!

Yeah, keep talkin' 'bout Saddam's torture chambers Assvibe. 'And always remember to look on the bright side of life!'

[BigBadBrian]

Re: Re: U.S. Broadens Definition Of Torture

Originally posted by Phil theStalker


FORCAST: Death t2onight, more death t2omrrow


P

Hopefully you can join in on the fun.

[DrMaddVibe]

I'm sorry Nicky...Geneva what?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
I'm sorry Nicky...Geneva what?

Only women call me Nicky, do you have a vagina?

[DrMaddVibe]

Nope...but your buddy has a liberal labia...Nicky!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Nope...but your buddy has a liberal labia...Nicky!

You're beginning to bore me Assvibe...Yawn**@*@*@YAWN...So very boring and uninformed.

[DrMaddVibe]

Nick...you should know boring...you have to look at it dead on every time you face a mirror.

Your baby tantrums and fit throwing has ceased to be amusing a LONG time ago.

You offer childish solutions and minimal fresh ideas. You bleat the typical scripted attention whore responses and absurd accusations. When you're confronted with facts you run away or fail to mention you were wrong.

If anyone should yawn...it should be anyone that's read your regurgitated bullshit opinions!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
I'm sorry Nicky...Geneva what?

Oh, sorry, I didn't know that denial of international treaties that will ultimately get Americans tortured and killed in a future war was such a comical thing for you. 'Cause hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You are brilliant Assvibe. You don't have a clue nor grasp of the implications, you just want to torture them eh? You want to bury people in holes? Then fucking sign up macho Assvibe! Are you a veteran? Have you taken the class in the "Laws of Land Warfare?" Have you ever have interrogation training? Try it sometime, might broaden your perspectives. I suggest MOS 97E. Ask a recruiter about it today!

You ceased to amuse me also with your whimsical smiling crap.

Hey, they can even deny Americans due process now, but you'll gladly surrender your civil rights won't you shithead.


"Hey, its terror level orange, let us into your fucking house bitch!"

[DrMaddVibe]

Been there...done that. Love to be back in but it's a young man's game they want to play. Been with the best of the best as far as military intelligence and CEWI operations go. You don't have a clue and you're grasping at straws!

IF you understood what you think you do you'd shut the fuck up and admit how wrong you were. Please enlighten us with how the Geneva Convention applies to the war on terrorism and why the Justice Department crafted this...

U.S. Replaces Memo on Torture with New Guidelines
Fri Dec 31, 2004 12:47 AM ET
By Deborah Charles
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department released a new memo on Friday to replace a controversial document outlining how to avoid violating U.S. and international terror statutes while interrogating prisoners.

In a Dec. 30 memorandum, released early on Friday, the department stepped back from an August 2002 memo that said only the most severe types of torture were not permissible under U.S. and international agreements against torture.

The new memo was more broad in its definition of what could be considered torture, and therefore what was unacceptable under U.S. law and under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

The new memorandum was released on a federal holiday, just one week before White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales -- to whom the August 2002 memo was addressed -- was to appear before the Senate for confirmation hearings. Gonzales has been nominated by President Bush to be the new Attorney General.

The August 2002 memo was withdrawn and the new one written after a public outcry over the summer when the August 2002 memo and other documents regarding the interrogation and treatment of Iraqi and al Qaeda prisoners were made public.

Bush has said he never ordered torture but secret documents released in June showed that interrogation methods approved for use at Guantanamo Bay, where prisoners from the U.S. war on terror are held, once included the use of dogs to induce fear.

The documents showed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in December 2002 approved harsh interrogation techniques for Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo, only to rescind many of those weeks later and approve less aggressive techniques in April 2003.

Behind many of the techniques approved and used on prisoners was the August 2002 memo to Gonzales from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel discussing how far the interrogation could go before it could be considered torture.

The new memo, written by the Office of Legal Counsel but addressed to Deputy Attorney General James Comey, acknowledged problems with the August document which dissected the definition of torture.

Under international law, torture is defined as an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.

"Questions have since been raised ... about the appropriateness and relevance of the non-statutory discussion in the August 2002 Memorandum," the Dec. 30 memo said.


In particular, the Dec. 30 memo disagrees with the statement that "severe" pain under the terror statute was limited to pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." The new document also disagreed that "severe" pain is limited to "excruciating and agonizing" pain.

It also disagreed with the detailed discussion in the August memo defining the precise meaning of "specific intent."

"In light of the president's directive that the United States not engage in torture, it would not be appropriate to rely on parsing the specific intent element of the statute to approve as lawful conduct that might otherwise amount to torture," it said.


© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.


Oh yeah...Nicky, Please stop posting your faggy assed picture. It's not flattering and I'm not not a homo like you.


Smile Biaatch fag!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Been there...done that. Love to be back in but it's a young man's game they want to play. Been with the best of the best as far as military intelligence and CEWI operations go. You don't have a clue and you're grasping at straws!

IF you understood what you think you do you'd shut the fuck up and admit how wrong you were. Please enlighten us with how the Geneva Convention applies to the war on terrorism and why the Justice Department crafted this...

U.S. Replaces Memo on Torture with New Guidelines
Fri Dec 31, 2004 12:47 AM ET
By Deborah Charles
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department released a
The documents showed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in December 2002 approved harsh interrogation techniques for Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo, only to rescind many of those weeks later and approve less aggressive techniques in April 2003.


© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.


Oh yeah...Nicky, Please stop posting your faggy assed picture. It's not flattering and I'm not not a homo like you.


Smile Biaatch fag!

Why don't you drop the rhetorical questions and tell me what YOU think. I mean I know you are old and a little slow Assvibe. But you repeatedly have shown a complete lack of understanding when it comes to the War on Terrorism in general and what is going on in Iraq.

I show you that you are wrong about smiling, the Geneva Convention, among other things and all you can do is come back with bullshit cut n' pastes that have little to do with the subject.

Tell me how specifically denying Iraqis rights will end terrorism. If you were indeed in intelligence, you would know the following picture made hundreds of little terrorists. But hey, smile douchebag, everytime a roasdside bomb goes off in Iraq, an American soldier gets his wings. Silly ME, I don't smile enough.

Why don't you read the article in the thread I bump. Then tell me all about how ignoring the Geneva convention will help us win in Iraq.

I mean after all, don't you have kids? Maybe someday they'll get killed in a terrorist attack that you apathy and stupidity help happen or fail to prevent.

Oh, and I didn't mean to turn you on with gay guy photos Assvibe. BTW, if I were a fag, you'd be sucking my dick.

[Nickdfresh]

Pic