I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Outstanding online pay day loans that was swift along with straight forward to sign up for as you absolutely need money.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

And what did I start out saying eh ?
That when you are FOR a ban on torture and AGAINST the Pentagon putting that into practice you are doing nothing other than seaching for pointless things to complain about.

This remains uneffected by anything I’ve posted since and these idiots are still carrying on about it. Thinkprogress actually has a followup story to obscure the fact they got this first one so wrong.

Meanwhile you’re left defending the next Republican presidential candidate against the Rupublican who isn’t running on the basis that his torture loophole is less obvious than the current.

Don’t talk to me pal. You and all the rest of these people have chosen to be this pointless from start to finish. And for no other reason than Thinkprogress told you to be outraged about a non-issue rather than discussing real ones.

Now get back to the War on Christmas issue before it’s too late.

No, I didn’t mean that. I meant the way the changes were introduced was bad. I am sure you can see the difference.

That’s a strange assessment seing as they’ve all but been approved.

I could not have known at the time I wrote the comment.

For all the wailing about morals and human rights and American values on this website not one of you seems to have a problem with this bill being more concerned with stopping torture scandals than it is with stopping torture.
Comment by Tank — December 16, 2005 @ 12:48 am

You could have said this from the very beginning and saved a lot of time. It could also have steered the discussion into a more meaningful direction.

After all, if you get the Egyptians to do your torturing for you that’s not American personnel breaking American laws or American values right ?

Torture is wrong no matter where it is done.

The very first issue about laws being broken in regard to torture was in regard to the law prohibiting extradition to countries where there was an expectation of torture.

Right, and that should be stopped. Why didn’t you say so to start with?

Read the McCain amendment again. Notice how that remains uneffected ? Yeah now go back to pretending your values are somehow different that the people who are running these programs to start with.

Again, if instead of coming out swinging you had stated this and the previous thoughts clearly, you had the potential of steering the discussion into a more positive terrain. Too bad you chose not to.

Your last sentence is completely uncalled for.

It is the same as my position for those being tortured via renditions who are not in US custody. You remember renditions right ? Where the US is so poor at torturing people and keeping it quiet so instead they hand them over to other countries who are much better at it and know how to keep it quiet.

For all the wailing about morals and human rights and American values on this website not one of you seems to have a problem with this bill being more concerned with stopping torture scandals than it is with stopping torture.

After all, if you get the Egyptians to do your torturing for you that’s not American personnel breaking American laws or American values right ?

Rather than parroting every single issue raised by websites like this try using your heads instead. The very first issue about laws being broken in regard to torture was in regard to the law prohibiting extradition to countries where there was an expectation of torture.

Read the McCain amendment again. Notice how that remains uneffected ? Yeah now go back to pretending your values are somehow different that the people who are running these programs to start with.

No. You asked for clarification. I considered this irrelevant and serving only to distract from the topic.

If you read today’s newspapers you can see President Bush’s position on the McCain amendments. He has veto power over the bill and hence his opinion is relevant. Yourself and I don’t and therefor ours aren’t.

I haven’t said having the specifics now is a bad thing, so please stop repeating it.

You stated the problem with them was that they would complicate the political negotiations over this bill. Since you’ve never said they were bad I take it you meant they were “good complications” then.
Either way the negotiations seem to have gone quite well.

But because the negotiations are based on the original manual, not the new, modified version these changes will put a dent on the approval of McCain’s amendment.

That’s a strange assessment seing as they’ve all but been approved.

So you think this is the case, the Thinkprogress is wrong and notone of the people who read their article was smart enough to pick up on this ?
The reason you are trying to spin this into something worse than it is should be self evident.

The actions comapred to the words of the administration are not compatable. Having limits is not bad in a general sense, but it depends ENTIRELY on what those limits are. They made the Army FM classified. That means if you don’t have clearance, you can’t look at it.

Which of course means that when you state that these amendments are incompatible with the McCain amendment you are simply talking shit.

Absolutely, but what soldiers will be able to see the manual? The common soldier will still have ZERO guidance, as the manual is classified.

The manual isn’t classified and you really shouldn’t be commenting if this is how little you understand about the topic.

“The New York Times notes that McCain will likely be “furious” with the changes, and an unnamed Pentagon official is quoted, “This is a stick in McCain’s eye. It goes right up to the edge. He’s not going to be comfortable with this.””

We discussed this already.

I asked for clarification -no need to get huffy and puffy. Let me ask again: Can you please clarify your position on the torture of detainees under US custody? Is torture justified in some scenarios? If so, which ones?

Can you please answer these simple questions?

How is having a specific reference NOW while these negotiations are going on for how the Pentagon interprets them a bad thing rather than good ?

I haven’t said having the specifics now is a bad thing, so please stop repeating it. But because the negotiations are based on the original manual, not the new, modified version these changes will put a dent on the approval of McCain’s amendment.

You do realise this issue isn’t about stopping McCain from torturing people right ? Or people being shown the word “degrading” on a bill ? This is actually about how these principles are put into practice by the military.

I didn’t need the explanation but I appreciate the effort you put into it.

And you think knowing that up front is a bad thing. Quite clearly you don’t have the capacity to think for yourself.

Again, I never said knowing it beforehand is a bad thing. You said it. Let me repeat what I said before: If the Pentagon, and the Bush Administration were sincere in their repudiation of “coercive interrogation techniques” they could have proposed these and other changes to the lawmakers involved instead of sneaking through the back door to make changes to the document central to the negotiations.

You seem to be suggesting that when you propose legislation that dictates policy to the military there would be no expectation that military policy would be effected.

I am not suggesting anything. You said: “[McCain] drafted and submitted the bill he wanted. If he wanted to specify these things himself then he should have done that to start with.”

My reply to that is that McCain could not have known if and what changes were going to be introduced to the manual by the Pentagon and/or when. To say “he could have specified these himself” is disingenuous. In other words, your argument is weak. This is not a suggestion.

Finally, let’s keep our exchange from slipping into abusive name-calling, shall we?