Is THIS Torture? Of Course Not!

i guess i shoulda used the pic of graner and the corpse since it would have been more relevant due to his conviction today.  this one seemed more powerful tho.

What's that old grave-robber motto? 'They're dead; they don't care" It can't be wrong if they're dead... Let's just hope that Mr Gonzales does not learn first-hand why this sort of thing is repulsive and not to be encourage with weasel worded press releases.

Gonzales's job had nothing to do with Abu Graib or the military, not even indirectly. The "opinions he offered the president" related to whether Geneva Convention accords applied to stateless terrorists and terrorist suspects. Why is this being used to trash him? Trash her, trash the photographer and trash her superior officer. I'd bet a couple of paychecks none of those who perpetrated this kind of shameful act had a clue Gonzales even existed or knew anything about any executive summaries he prepared. You disappoint me, here, kingbee - this is a very yellow post.

The military was very explicit going into Iraq that the Geneva Convention applied to captives in Iraq. These were soldiers who failed to abide by the rules of engagement, either willfully or through ignorance. Using this picture to trash Gonzales tells me you have no understanding of his job and that you are willing to buy into the bogus finger-pointing propaganda.

Cheers,
Daiwa

..

Gonzales's job had nothing to do with Abu Graib or the military, not even indirectly.

have you read the jan 25 2002 memo signed by gonzales summarizing arguments for and against implementation of the executive military order of november 13, 2001?   according to the washinton times:

Gonzales, after reviewing a legal brief from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, advised Bush verbally on Jan. 18, 2002, that he had authority to exempt the detainees from such protections. Bush agreed, reversing a decades-old policy aimed in part at ensuring equal treatment for U.S. military detainees around the world. Rumsfeld issued an order the next day to commanders that detainees would receive such protections only "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- whose legal adviser, William H. Taft IV, had vigorously tried to block the decision -- then met twice with Bush to convince him that the decision would be a public relations debacle and would undermine U.S. military prohibitions on detainee abuse. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed Powell, as did the leaders of the U.S. Central Command who were pursuing the war.


gonzales' january 25, 2002 memo lists arguments of those opposed to the order, including this one: "A determination that the GW does not apply to al-Quaeda and the Taliban could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards in combat and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries."  Gonzales then offers a counter: "...the argument based on military culture fails to recognize that our military remains bound to apply the the principles of GPW because that's what you told them to do."

that memo and a subsequent meeting between bush qne gonzales led to the executive order of february 7, 2002 which the schlesinger commission cited as being a key factor in centcom's flawed interrogation policies.

obviously gonzales didnt directly order anything, but its disingenuous at very least to claim he didnt directly participate in the policies that created the climate responsible for the abuses at abu gharib.  

I don't know if Mr. Gonzalez is qualified for Attorney General or not, but I do know that the "torture" rhetoric surrounding his nomination has little or nothing to do with the facts. If they did, those who appose him would make a direct connection, instead of resorting to round about ones

unfortunately the only fact that matters is gonzales is gonna get a pass.  if youre familiar with the story of thomas more and henryviii, gonzales is pretty much more's polar opposite.  instead of refusing to condone henry's heresy, gonzales would be devising ways in which the pope coulda been kept outta the loop.

If you're into gory pictures to make a point

if i was into gory pictures for any reason, i might have used one although i cant imagine blood n guts being anything but redundant in this case.

..

Reply #5 By: kingbee - 1/15/2005 9:39:34 AM Gonzales's job had nothing to do with Abu Graib or the military, not even indirectly. have you read the jan 25 2002 memo signed by gonzales summarizing arguments for and against implementation of the executive military order of november 13, 2001? according to the washinton times: Gonzales, after reviewing a legal brief from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, advised Bush verbally on Jan. 18, 2002, that he had authority to exempt the detainees from such protections. Bush agreed, reversing a decades-old policy aimed in part at ensuring equal treatment for U.S. military detainees around the world. Rumsfeld issued an order the next day to commanders that detainees would receive such protections only "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity." Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- whose legal adviser, William H. Taft IV, had vigorously tried to block the decision -- then met twice with Bush to convince him that the decision would be a public relations debacle and would undermine U.S. military prohibitions on detainee abuse. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed Powell, as did the leaders of the U.S. Central Command who were pursuing the war. gonzales' january 25, 2002 memo lists arguments of those opposed to the order, including this one: "A determination that the GW does not apply to al-Quaeda and the Taliban could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards in combat and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries." Gonzales then offers a counter: "...the argument based on military culture fails to recognize that our military remains bound to apply the the principles of GPW because that's what you told them to do." that memo and a subsequent meeting between bush qne gonzales led to the executive order of february 7, 2002 which the schlesinger commission cited as being a key factor in centcom's flawed interrogation policies. obviously gonzales didnt directly order anything, but its disingenuous at very least to claim he didnt directly participate in the policies that created the climate responsible for the abuses at abu gharib.

And the problem is? NOWHERE in that memo does he form his OWN opinion! He uses what was said by other agencies inclucding the DOJ! NOWHERE on there does he say that torture was/ was not okay to use. What your using is pure leftist spin!


Link

the bright, cheerfulness of it, as shown in her smile....right?

the smile is exactly what makes that pic so awful. you have to wonder how and why the girl next door wound up abusing the remains of someone who isnt gonna be around for the new iraq.  to paraphrase woody guthrie, some people kill you with a gun and some--like gonzales, yoo, bybee and addison--use fountain pens. in this case, they penned memos and opinions that are morally bankrupt and dangerous--like the january 25th memo and the opinion that accorded supremacy of the executive branch over the other two.  

an article on gonzales' involvement in the process contained noted the following:

A former senior military lawyer, who was involved in the deliberations but spoke on the condition of anonymity, complained that Gonzales's counsel's office had ignored the language and history of the conventions, treating the question "as if they wanted to look at the rules to see how to justify what they wanted to do."

that type of approach is much more appropriate to one of those lawyers ya see on tv soliciting pi cases than the office of attorney general of the united states.

that they would hope to sully the good names of either of these people

athough im sure you mean to suggest a positive association between thomas and gonzales, it aint gonna happen here.  at least a year prior to thomas' nomination to the supreme court, i read an article in which his clerks were describing what a down-to-earth guy he was, citing interoffice witticisms about thomas' favorite porn videos.  you know the ones he denied ever seeing much less discussing with co-workers.

..

OK, I'll concede that there were references to the military - I was wrong on that.

But 2 things remain true:

He was referring to whether Al-Qaeda & Taliban terrorist captives were subject to the GW, not Iraqi detainees.

He offered an analysis of the issue to the President which included arguments for and against various aspects of the issue, as the quote you provided shows, which was his job. The quote also confirms that the military was told by the President that the requirements of the Geneva Convention were to be followed. And I believe you are wrong concerning the motives you impute to Mr. Gonzales.

Cheers,
Daiwa

In fact, another thing I remember is how often we heard, "It isn't the evidence that is important, it is the the importance of the issue" (ie sexual harrassment).

Classic nonsense, isn't it PT2k? Just like Rather and his frustrated apologists: "Everyone keeps focusing on these documents being fake when the real issue is what the President may or may not have done." Leftist dogma requires that evidence be ignored, lest it contradict one's opinion; and the absence of evidence is the best evidence of wrongdoing - you can claim anything you want and it's up to the accused to prove you wrong.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Keep vomitting up the standard lines of your mentors. It must be so much easier than actual thought

dismissing my personal experience as regurgitated rote is apparently easier than reading the complete sentence you fragmented in the process of quoting it.    no mentors showed up at my door to insist i read the article i described. i knew virtually nothing bout thomas at the time and came away thinking 'who knows...maybe the guy's for real?' 

i mentioned it to the guy who owned the company at which i was working at the time...and totally forgot about it til (i hate to have to say this cuz it sounds too bizarre) the mention of long dong silver rang (jeez) a bell.  in that article, one of thomas' clerks had mentioned his boss' fascination with mr silver.  it took me about 24 hours to track it down a reference to it so i wasnt the only person who saw it.  unfortunately i lost it along with half a 20' ryder truck fulla books, magazines and personal papers about 10 years ago and the paper in which it appeared (the la times) doesnt maintain an online archive going back that far.

since im unable to produce it, you can feel free to accuse me of lying to make a silly point in a blog thread and overlook my assertion that thomas lied under oath during that hearing (for which a pretty decent case already exists).

I notice you completely ignored the part about Justice Ginsburg. Either pedophilia is ok by you, or she the facts about her are not as bad to you as second hand heresay about republicans

im unable to find the full text of the ginsburg article to which you refer online.  if you can provide a link to it, ill be happy to read it and form an opinion.  so far all ive been able to find are fragmented quotes, all of which seem to link back to phyllis schafly.  it's impossible to tell the context from the excerpt alone.  it appears there are a lotta fundamentalist activists who have no problem parroting second- or third-hand pull quotes since each one  found was an exact duplicate of all the others.  

Yikes. Yikes. Yikes.
That's all I can think of.
Yikes!

..

He was referring to whether Al-Qaeda & Taliban terrorist captives were subject to the GW, not Iraqi detainees

altho those memos specifically focused on al-quaida and the taliban, they also refer to enemy combantants and detainees. the schlesinger commission--in its attempt to explain how things went wrong in abu gharib--determined unclear policy and a failure of adequate oversight at the department of defense as well as at centcom were major factors that led to those abuses.  gonzales memos clearly added to the lack of clarity and direction. 

more importantly, much of what gonzales claimed to be defensible has been rejected by the court.

The quote also confirms that the military was told by the President that the requirements of the Geneva Convention were to be followed. And I believe you are wrong concerning the motives you impute to Mr. Gonzales.

a very concise summary of the january 25, 2004 memo would be: a. there is a technical basis for the president to decide the GPW doesnt apply to members of the taliban or al-quaida.   b. americans are still prohibited from committing war crimes by the war crimes act.  c.  the act specifies war crimes to be--in large part--violations of the geneva conventions.  d. denying GPW protection to the taliban, al quaida and other groups "substantially reduces the threat of domestic prosecution'  under the war crimes act.   

together, this memo...the yoo/bybee opinion that asserts executive superiority over both the congress and the judiciary...and gonzales 50-page handbook on how to beat a torture rap (his analysis of what constitutes 'extreme' torture and tactics for establishing the ways by which a one could claim no intention to inflict pain in the course of doing something that caused pain are fuckin amazing) with its suggestion of another way around the war crimes act (officially determine the GPW didnt apply without officially making that a matter of policy) really call into question gonzales ethics and professional ability. 

after reading and rereading all that crap, i think youre missing the point of the tag line to the jan 25th memo...our military remains bound to apply the the principles of GPW because that's what you told them to do." 

it's a cynically unsubtle (as in *wink, wink...nod, nod*) proffer of nixonesque 'plausible deniability'.

However, I could only find it as mentioned as a footnote now.

thats all i could find as well.  the truncation--indicated by '...'--concerns me.  (in all candor, justice ginsberg and her feminist team--or any other group of feminists--advocating the age of consent be lowereed seems about as likely to me as justice thomas crusading to make al sharpton's birthday a national holiday--while sharpton is still alive.)

 ill keep trying to find the original report. 

Reply #17 By: kingbee - 1/16/2005 2:04:57 PM He was referring to whether Al-Qaeda & Taliban terrorist captives were subject to the GW, not Iraqi detainees altho those memos specifically focused on al-quaida and the taliban, they also refer to enemy combantants and detainees. the schlesinger commission--in its attempt to explain how things went wrong in abu gharib--determined unclear policy and a failure of adequate oversight at the department of defense as well as at centcom were major factors that led to those abuses. gonzales memos clearly added to the lack of clarity and direction. more importantly, much of what gonzales claimed to be defensible has been rejected by the court. The quote also confirms that the military was told by the President that the requirements of the Geneva Convention were to be followed. And I believe you are wrong concerning the motives you impute to Mr. Gonzales. a very concise summary of the january 25, 2004 memo would be: a. there is a technical basis for the president to decide the GPW doesnt apply to members of the taliban or al-quaida. b. americans are still prohibited from committing war crimes by the war crimes act. c. the act specifies war crimes to be--in large part--violations of the geneva conventions. d. denying GPW protection to the taliban, al quaida and other groups "substantially reduces the threat of domestic prosecution' under the war crimes act. together, this memo...the yoo/bybee opinion that asserts executive superiority over both the congress and the judiciary...and gonzales 50-page handbook on how to beat a torture rap (his analysis of what constitutes 'extreme' torture and tactics for establishing the ways by which a one could claim no intention to inflict pain in the course of doing something that caused pain are fuckin amazing) with its suggestion of another way around the war crimes act (officially determine the GPW didnt apply without officially making that a matter of policy) really call into question gonzales ethics and professional ability. after reading and rereading all that crap, i think youre missing the point of the tag line to the jan 25th memo...our military remains bound to apply the the principles of GPW because that's what you told them to do." it's a cynically unsubtle (as in *wink, wink...nod, nod*) proffer of nixonesque 'plausible deniability'.

Maybe you should go read the actual memo. Here's a link.

Link

And the problem is? NOWHERE in that memo does he form his OWN opinion! He uses what was said by other agencies inclucding the DOJ! NOWHERE on there does he say that torture was/ was not okay to use. What your using is pure leftist spin!

..

Maybe you should go read the actual memo

what leads you to think i havent read all four of the documents im citing numerous times as i noted throughout this thread?   you think i just make this shit up?   he certainly is offering his own opinion because thats what hes paid to do. that's the point of the memo youve linked.   in the 50-page followup he discusses all manner of torture and opines that there are a number of ways in which its possible to defend anyone who was prosecuted for engaging in them.  instead of being so quick to copy what's already been said, you might actually consider what others are saying rather than simply concluding bush good, everyone else bad.

I have to give you kudos for actually using one of the pics. When I referred to them in an article, I debated long and hard whether or not to use them. I finally decided my description of the pictures sufficed.

the smile is exactly what makes that pic so awful.

Agreed.

(the la times) doesnt maintain an online archive going back that far.

I don't know if they still do, but the main Glendale library used to have book indexes of the L.A. Times and a room full of microfilm. I spent many hours there researching. (I wish I could find a library around here half as well equipped. I was spoiled by my hometown system.)

the main Glendale library used to have book indexes of the L.A. Times and a room full of microfilm. I spent many hours there researching

i'm not sure if my local library (la cty library branch in san pedro) is up to glendale's standards...but theres also a county branch within reasonable distance, so ill check into both.  thanks for the tip.  i was (duh) actually considering going to the times offices cuz  i really would like to locate that story again--if for no other reason than to have it in my pocket when im led away raving and ranting

What is the article about? When did it appear. I have access to a school systems online archives, which could well include the LA times. I will look into this.