NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060616/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_abuse

So they fed them bread and water for days on end, stripped them, used unaproved interrogation methods and who knows what else since much of the report is censored.


No only that...
"Both the Formica and the Jacoby report demonstrate that the government is really not taking the investigation of detainee abuse seriously," said Amrit Sing, an ACLU attorney.

Sing questioned why the two reports only focused on a limited number of incidents. In particular, she said there have been numerous documents showing that special operations forces abused detainees, and yet Formica only reviewed a few cases.


What I want to know is... why have the decided not to punish anyone?

What I want to know is... why have the decided not to punish anyone?

Let's see.
The report, with many portions blacked out, concludes that the detainees' treatment was wrong but not illegal and reflected inadequate resources and lack of oversight and proper guidance more than deliberate abuse. No military personnel were punished as a result of the investigation.

What I want to know is... why have the decided not to punish anyone?

Because according to the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, Muslims aren't really human beings. That's why it's okay to do whatever you feel like to them and not even get a slap on the wrist. Hell, it's even okay to round them up and then sterilize them or shoot them all.

Oh, and by suggesting that Muslims are regular human beings with human emotions you've openly declared yourself a terrorist.

Let's see.

So says the report, but I doubt it's the truth. They should at least backhand a few of those assholes and make them strip and sleep (or try to as The Dixie Chicks is pumped into their cell *turned up to 11*) on a cold cell floor for a while as they are only allowed to eat bread and water until they need hospitalization.

Because according to the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, Muslims aren't really human beings. That's why it's okay to do whatever you feel like to them and not even get a slap on the wrist. Hell, it's even okay to round them up and then sterilize them or shoot them all.

Oh, and by suggesting that Muslims are regular human beings with human emotions you've openly declared yourself a terrorist.


JIHAD!!!

Yes - what a terroristic bastard I must be

So says the report, but I doubt it's the truth. They should at least backhand a few of those assholes and make them strip and sleep (or try to as The Dixie Chicks is pumped into their cell *turned up to 11*) on a cold cell floor for a while as they are only allowed to eat bread and water until they need hospitalization.

Wait, so you believe that what is in the report about the actual events it the truth, but then you don't believe the exact same report when it concludes that the actual events didn't violate any laws? How is this not picking and choosing, double-standard, etc.? How do you justify that line of thought?

What I want to know is... why have the decided not to punish anyone?
The next election is coming up... A chance to dole out some political punishment...

Wait, so you believe that what is in the report about the actual events it the truth, but then you don't believe the exact same report when it concludes that the actual events didn't violate any laws? How is this not picking and choosing, double-standard, etc.? How do you justify that line of thought?

Because:

A: legality is not the only standard for behavior. People can be fired without doing anything illegal, after all. Cussing out a customer would get one fired in the real world.

B: It does not compute that brutal, horrible behavior goes unpunished.

Because according to the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, Muslims aren't really human beings. That's why it's okay to do whatever you feel like to them and not even get a slap on the wrist. Hell, it's even okay to round them up and then sterilize them or shoot them all.

Oh, and by suggesting that Muslims are regular human beings with human emotions you've openly declared yourself a terrorist.

Actually, Gauthier, I don't have anything against Muslims, but against militant Islam. And I don't keep that attitude out of hatred, but out of a pure philosophy of survival. It would apply to anyone, regardless of their belief system or skin color if their primary goal was to destroy the West.

That, and I'm as brown as any Arab.

Because:

A: legality is not the only standard for behavior. People can be fired without doing anything illegal, after all. Cussing out a customer would get one fired in the real world.

B: It does not compute that brutal, horrible behavior goes unpunished.

Actually the person wasn't questioning the morality, but the legality of it. When the report found what happened, that person accepted it as true, but when the report said that it was legal, that person said they doubt it.

Actually the person wasn't questioning the morality, but the legality of it. When the report found what happened, that person accepted it as true, but when the report said that it was legal, that person said they doubt it.

No, read back again.

No, read back again.

Alright, this was the opening post:

What I want to know is... why have the decided not to punish anyone?

This was DK's response. It came first:


Let's see.

Quote:
The report, with many portions blacked out, concludes that the detainees' treatment was wrong but not illegal and reflected inadequate resources and lack of oversight and proper guidance more than deliberate abuse. No military personnel were punished as a result of the investigation.

DK even highlighted where it said "not illegal" to emphasize the context - that it was a question of legality, not morality, and that this is why they aren't being punished. Then SB responded:


Let's see.

So says the report, but I doubt it's the truth. They should at least backhand a few of those assholes and make them strip and sleep (or try to as The Dixie Chicks is pumped into their cell *turned up to 11*) on a cold cell floor for a while as they are only allowed to eat bread and water until they need hospitalization.

SB said that s/he acknowledges that the report says that its not illegal, but that s/he doubts its true that it was not illegal.

Reading back, it would appear to be exactly as I stated. The topic was the legality, not morality.

Reading back, it would appear to be exactly as I stated. The topic was the legality, not morality.

No, SB asked why they were not punished and DK shifted the debate over to one of legality. SB had none of it, and continued on his "why were they not punished?" theme.

And since one can be punished fair and square without doing anything illegal (one just can't be fined or incarcerated,) the question of illegality is moot.

No, SB asked why they were not punished and DK shifted the debate over to one of legality. SB had none of it, and continued on his "why were they not punished?" theme.

SB didn't ask anything about why people weren't punished after DK responded. You're just making stuff up now.

If you follow the dialogue, SB responded to DK's quote "not illegal" with the statement "so says the report, but I doubt it's the truth." What exactly are you claiming SB doubts if it isn't what DK quoted?

SB didn't ask anything about why people weren't punished after DK responded. You're just making stuff up now.

If you follow the dialogue, SB responded to DK's quote "not illegal" with the statement "so says the report, but I doubt it's the truth." What exactly are you claiming SB doubts if it isn't what DK quoted?

How do you know SB was only responding to two bolded words? I know big letters, bold letters and eclamation points dazzle the primitive parts of our cerebral cortex, but come one.

Ah hell, I'm sure SB will explain it to you.

How do you know SB was only responding to two bolded words? I know big letters, bold letters and eclamation points dazzle the primitive parts of our cerebral cortex, but come one.

Ah hell, I'm sure SB will explain it to you.

I know because it was the context and DK's response. Bolding words makes them the topic of the statement. If SB wasn't responding to that, it would be the fallacy of ignoratio elenechi.

Maybe SB was talking about else in the response and committing the fallacy. I can't say one way or another as a fact. I'm just assuming that SB was responding in the fashion that logic dictates.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060616/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_abuse

So they fed them bread and water for days on end, stripped them, used unaproved interrogation methods and who knows what else since much of the report is censored.


No only that...


What I want to know is... why have the decided not to punish anyone?

I think it's disgusting that anti-war liberal activists are still trying to undermine the war effort. It's time for those left-wing nuts at the Pentagon to support our president and the troops. Letting out information like this is a blatant effort to hurt the morale of our troops and embolden our enemies. The Pentagon should be shot for commiting treason. :D