> a 1998 law that seems to prohibit the practice.

"Seems" doesn't cut it, genius. Law is black and white, legal or illegal.

> the CIA's change of tack is motivated by increasingly shaky legal support

So you too even admit that it is legal, and yet still continue to argue the point. Like I said on another topic, you're just here to stir your little stick in the mud.

You see, I only use selective reading when unpatriotic scum like you starts lying about my country and its practices. I won't intentionally expose myself to your propaganda after I know for a fact you are lying.

BTW, I put in another extra hour of overtime for you today. Enjoy your free meal.

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

Having a hard time differentiating between what you read in a link and what you read elsewhere?

I 'admitted' to nothing you so uncomprehendingly seize on to maintain your shaky grasp of reality....

I'll give you some partial credit for one thing...

If I stirred you up..... the mud must have also been roiled.

Go pound nails, mushbrain, you're pitiful attempts at discourse only demonstrate your lack of any perceptive capabilities.

---

People with alot of power should have figured out by now that it's just not right to be subjecting people to torture
Whether or not they're criminals, they shouldn't be tortured
I know it
And I'm not a powerful leader

one could question whether those who must resort to torture could ever be considered as leaders.

They may think they've gained control, but it wouldn't be through any kind of leadership.

---

Pentagon wants to ship Gitmo prisoners 'en mass' to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

.......officials also hope to shed dozens of prisoners whose cases are being studied by special review boards.

That's the stuff, ship em off before they embarass you in the American courts.

Simple fix....... ship them beyond the reach of the American courts.

"""Defense Department officials said that the adverse court rulings had contributed to their determination to reduce the population at Guantánamo""'

______________________

Abu Ghraib chidren and 'ghost' detainees revisited.

Comment attributed to Maj Gen Wodjakowski:

""I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning the war""

---

Two Afghan prisoners who died in American custody in Afghanistan in December 2002 were chained to the ceiling, kicked and beaten by American soldiers in sustained assaults that caused their deaths, according to Army criminal investigative reports that have not yet been made public.


The attacks on Mr. Dilawar were so severe that "even if he had survived, both legs would have had to be amputated," the Army report said, citing a medical examiner

---

Okay, we'll stipulate that some bad stuff was done.

So?

---

So, the first step in making any relevant change is to acknowledge just what it is that we are doing now.

With all the public denials of any wrong doing, and revelations much later that all the denials were lies, shouldn't we delve a little deeper into what might still be hidden from view?

Shouldn't we expect disclosure? Aren't we supposed to be living in a transparent society? Isn't that what our 'leaders' champion?

The American ideals of our founders are not represented by the revelations we discover each day.

Do we wish to lose those ideals?.......supplant them with 'something else'?

Do we reward the policy makers with promotions and re-elections?

Or do we ask that it stop?

Shouldn't we ask that the policy underlying these abuses is reversed and America act according to it's ideals?

---

There's no evidence whatsoever that we've got a "policy" of indiscriminate torture. None.

A few problems here and there are bound to occur. It's regrettable, but it happens. And people who abuse the system, are, by and large, punished for their transgressions.

That's enough for me.

---

>There's no evidence whatsoever that we've got a "policy" of indiscriminate torture. None.

Maybe you missed the Yoo memos. ...The Gonzales memos. ......The Haynes memos. ....The Philibin memos. ....The Taft memos. ...The Bybee memos. ...The Powell memos. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff memos. ...The Justice Dept memos. ....The DoD memos. .....The Ashcroft memos. ....The Bush memos.

Maybe you missed the Gonzales confirmation hearings.

Perhaps you missed the recent Supreme Court's rulings on Guantanamo.

Oh, and let's see.... the Taguba report, the Church report, the report from the International Red Cross, ........hmmm, then there is the latest 1200 page report from the Pentagon.

I may have missed recalling some of the evidence, but I have no idea how someone could have missed all of it.

Where have you been? Want to begin to get caught up?

---

> >There's no evidence whatsoever that we've got a "policy" of indiscriminate
> torture. None.
>

Paul,

You don't seem to be able to read again.

Where does it prove that there is a plan of action to haphazardly inflict severe physical pain?

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

You know, richard...

I consider the highlighted part of your post to be fairly pretentious. I have not provided evidence that any policy changes on torture even remotely resemble your question.

I've spoken to and pointed out evidence of a very systematic and deliberate plan of action to condone torture and institute extreme rendition as a policy directive to deal with detainees, prisoners and suspicious persons in general.

The evidence is not very well disputed, especially since it's in the Congressional record and has been entered into the Supreme Court as sworn testimony.

The Supreme Court's decision struck down illegal policy directives which attempted to give the president a free hand just because it was a time of war.

Only trouble is the court had already had a case that clearly set the precedent and they rejected the governments claims quite decidedly and forcefully.

One might try to argue that if the Court were to try the case again at some time in the future with different justices that the ruling might change and the evidence will be deemed not to be an indication of illegal activity...

But no one has ventured that kind of argument. And as of today, the Supreme Court did find that the government had attempted to formulate policy which was illegal.

No one has offered any kind of evidence that what is known now could be construed as false.

Only attempts to muddle the issue with exteraneous deflection.

I'm perfectly aware of when someone wants to discuss a subject and when someone just wants to deflect the discussion by trying to make some point through subterfuge.

Was there a point you had that was relevant to the discussion here?

Something which does speak to the evidence?

Because if all you want to do is play word games by interjecting nonsense, I'll just ignore it after pointing it out for the weak game it is.

---

still free? still no policy questions?

---

> You know, richard...
>
> I consider the highlighted part of your post to be fairly pretentious. I have
> not provided evidence that any policy changes on torture even remotely
> resemble your question.
>

Then you completely missed the point of the original statement of "policy" of indiscriminate torture.

> >There's no evidence whatsoever that we've got a "policy" of indiscriminate
> torture. None.
>

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

> Then you completely missed the point of the original statement of "policy" of
> indiscriminate torture.

So can you tell me what is not indiscriminate to pick up several hundred people at random in Afghanistan and Pakistan and send them to the Gulag in Gitmo?

Or to put people to the torture-jail in Abu Ghraib, just because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time, or have possible dangerous relatives/neighbours, as hearsay says?

Or to try to circumvent the geneva convention?
Or to redefine torture to an extent beyond any minimal human rights?
Or to use dictatorical orders to prevent matter of course due process for suspects?

There is a clear policy, that started at the top, and that says:
We're Americans, we're better than the rest, we can do what we like, nobody has to interfere.
We deal with dictators, and 'rendition' innocent bypassers to the torture dens of 'axis of evil' countries? So what, we're the Boss!

So that is the behaviour, that is an example to the rest of the world.
Every country should act just this way.
Kill just the weak dictators (Saddam), and be buddy to others (Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz), whithout any coherent explanation.

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

---

I apologize to the rest of the board.

I was mistakenly under the impression that I was conversing with someone who was both rational and honest. Whereas most rational, honest people are capable of reasonable discourse -- often in pursuit of the solution to a stated problem -- there are some whose sole mission is to antagonize and irritate. Such individuals, while capable of rational thought and intelligent discourse, are far more interested in throwing a discussion into turmoil by introducing inflammatory half-truths and/or outright lies. Whether this is done to further a political agenda or merely to boost their ailing self-esteem is a matter that remains open for debate.

---

> I apologize to the rest of the board.
>
> I was mistakenly under the impression that I was conversing with someone who
> was both rational and honest. Whereas most rational, honest people are capable
> of reasonable discourse -- often in pursuit of the solution to a stated
> problem -- there are some whose sole mission is to antagonize and irritate.
> Such individuals, while capable of rational thought and intelligent discourse,
> are far more interested in throwing a discussion into turmoil by introducing
> inflammatory half-truths and/or outright lies. Whether this is done to further
> a political agenda or merely to boost their ailing self-esteem is a matter
> that remains open for debate.

+1 to you Ralph. I've nothing to add, except that your apology is not necessary.

i think you have crunch some WUs before what

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/show_user.php?userid=7824376

people who are here and have nothing to say, because their not at the Team Yet...

only my personall meaning

i have to say I am Proud to be a Setianer since... 21.oktober 1999

Greetings from Germany NRW
Ulli S@h Berkeley's Staff Friends Club m7 ©

> i think you have crunch some WUs before what
>
> http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/show_user.php?userid=7824376
>
> people who are here and have nothing to say, because their not at the Team
> Yet...
>
> only my personall meaning
>
> i have to say I am Proud to be a Setianer since... 21.oktober 1999
>


I'm sorry to say that PZ has a Mac that can't run Boinc at the present time.
He is running Seti Classic and has done 49 wu as of yesterday.

He would rather post liberal views on the boards than go out and find a better computer.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti