>Including the Guardian in the list renders all the others >questionable.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. In 11 articles, you find one source questionable (without any evidence other than your own say-so), and that is what you need to consider the rest to be not worth anything, despite them not coming from that source? Then you were looking for an excuse to ignore the evidence.
>Utter contempt for rule of law and the Geneva convention >would mean ignoring the US Supreme Court and execution >of all prisoners. Bush has accepted the Court's ruling >against him, and the prisoners have not been executed.
Bush was forced by the Supreme Court to obey the law of the country he professes to serve, after years of arguing he did not have to. That is not a respect for law. Nor does it indicate anything but contempt for it, or the Geneva Conventions which prominent members of his administration have spoken out against (and has that been publically recanted? I haven't heard of it, if so).
>The very existance of secret prisons is still open to >reasonable doubt. Remember, there are many people with >ample incentive to lie and fake evidence.
No, by god, it is NOT open to reasonable doubt. It has been investigated and admitted to and reported about. As well say the moon landings are open to reasonable doubt, the Holocaust is open to reasonable doubt, the theory of gravity is open to reasonable doubt.
If you want to believe in a massive conspiracy - including reports from all over the world, scores of former prisoners, and photographic evidence - to show the US is torturing people rather than simply accepting that they do, then there is no burden of evidence that can convince you.
In the rest of the world, the question is on how prevalent the practice is, who specifically authorised it, and mostly how to get the US to stop it, not whether it exists.
>People are being prosecuted for the torture that did >happen. The courts will decide who is guilty, and how far >up the chain the rot goes, but until they've decided, we >must assume everyone is innocent - that's one of the >foundations of the rule of law.
Wrong. The sentences for the first Abu Ghraib incident were already handed down, and all of seven soldiers were convicted. This, in response to a facility where human rights abuses had been reported for a YEAR before the release of the photos caused any action to be taken, and well after an honourably-discharged US veteran had reported that war crimes were going on.
Let me remind you of exactly what the official Tagupa report on the abuses of Abu Ghraib cited as having happened:
* Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.
* Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.
* Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.
* Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.
* Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.
* Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.
* Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.
* Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.
* Writing "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked.
* Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.
* A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee
* Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.
* Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.
* Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.
* Pouring cold water on naked detainees.
* Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.
* Threatening male detainees with rape.
* Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.
* Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
* Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.
This is what the person you equated to me calls "high school pranks".
And seven lousy people got prosecuted for this. The military contractors accused of abusing prisoners continued to work there afterwards. Despite consistant testimony that this occured with everything from indifference to congratulations from higher-ups, the only high-ranking officer to be punished was the one in charge of the camp, and she was demoted, not court-martialed or dishonourably discharged.
People were killed there as well as tortured. One that's been admitted to by the military, others from testimony of both former prisoners and former American military personnel at Abu Ghraib. Other abuses, such as rape, were also reported.
Donald Rumsfeld, in his speech about the affair before the Senate Armed Services Committee, spent half of it complaining that people with digital cameras had illegally passed the incriminating photos to the media.
That's ONE incident. Not the only one, just the most famous. Not the only one where prisoners have been murdered or tortured in American custody, and despite protests by apologists that it was an "isolated incident", there have also been incidences of the same thing in Afghanistan (including the two prisoners savagely beaten to death in 2002, before the Abu Ghraib scandal even came out). Reports have continued to surface since.
Perhaps you ought to give your opinion, using actual facts and citations, as to why you think the United States government and military are taking sufficient steps to stop this.
>As for restitution, what would you consider sufficient?
How about officially issued apologies and monetary restitution to the families of those tortured and killed by American forces?
That is, you know, how OTHER countries have tried to make up for war crimes.
>Everyone is well aware of the content of the articles you >linked to. If they were the conclusive proof you claim, no >reasonable person would disagree with you - and that >should be a warning bell. Assuming your political >opponents are not reasonable people is a dangerous >habit.
I was responding to someone who considers being sodomised with a chemical lightbulb a high school prank. Why should I assume he's reasonable?
And no, I don't think many people are well aware of the content of the articles I linked to at all. For instance, earlier in this same post you called them all "suspect"; now they're common knowledge?
>Citing those articles does a fine job of whipping the >faithful into a frenzy, but nothing to convince the doubters >- the very definition of preaching to the converted, and >then there's your strident tone.
As has already been proven by you and Necratoid, people absolutely determined to believe they are right will do so in the face of any amount of evidence, and will seize upon any excuse to discount evidence presented to them.
As for strident tone... you're damn right I have a strident tone, when responding to patently offensive people. You'll notice I also made polite responses. But when confronted with an apologist for state-sanctioned torture, I give them as short shrift as I'd give, say, a racist.
>If you want to convince anyone at all that your're right, >you need to reason with your opponents, not just restate >your own position. Consider the anti-creationist sites. >They don't just say 'creationism is not worth dignifying >with a debate when its been proven utterly wrong for 150 >years', they examine each piece of creationist logic and >evidence, and they counter it. That is the way to convince >the undecided, and it is what you are failing to do.
Ironically, your own example disproves your point, in two ways.
1) Despite the fact that there is ample on- and off-line factual sources that utterly disprove Creationism, adherents of it (or Intelligent Design, or other similar nonsense) continue to believe in it and have successfully mounted campaigns to get it taught in many US schools as if it were a theory with any intellectual backing.
2) It is well-known that most scientists in the field shun Creationists and have ignored "public forums" Creationists have tried to lure them into, for precisely the reason that dignifying Creationism by responding to it is precisely what Creationists want.
You do not convince people the moon landings were faked by engaging in public debates on the issue. Engaging in a public debate gives the impression that the opposing view had validity. NASA does not have open forums with people who take this view; they dismiss them, as they should be dismissed.
Aside from that, it's not as if Necratoid has posted a single shred of evidence or logic to be debated, a fact you apparently are determined to ignore in your attempts to equate the two of us. Much like you are determined to ignore all evidence presented by me on the basis that you find one of many sources suspect.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. In 11 articles, you find one source questionable (without any evidence other than your own say-so), and that is what you need to consider the rest to be not worth anything, despite them not coming from that source? Then you were looking for an excuse to ignore the evidence.
>Utter contempt for rule of law and the Geneva convention >would mean ignoring the US Supreme Court and execution >of all prisoners. Bush has accepted the Court's ruling >against him, and the prisoners have not been executed.
Bush was forced by the Supreme Court to obey the law of the country he professes to serve, after years of arguing he did not have to. That is not a respect for law. Nor does it indicate anything but contempt for it, or the Geneva Conventions which prominent members of his administration have spoken out against (and has that been publically recanted? I haven't heard of it, if so).
>The very existance of secret prisons is still open to >reasonable doubt. Remember, there are many people with >ample incentive to lie and fake evidence.
No, by god, it is NOT open to reasonable doubt. It has been investigated and admitted to and reported about. As well say the moon landings are open to reasonable doubt, the Holocaust is open to reasonable doubt, the theory of gravity is open to reasonable doubt.
If you want to believe in a massive conspiracy - including reports from all over the world, scores of former prisoners, and photographic evidence - to show the US is torturing people rather than simply accepting that they do, then there is no burden of evidence that can convince you.
In the rest of the world, the question is on how prevalent the practice is, who specifically authorised it, and mostly how to get the US to stop it, not whether it exists.
>People are being prosecuted for the torture that did >happen. The courts will decide who is guilty, and how far >up the chain the rot goes, but until they've decided, we >must assume everyone is innocent - that's one of the >foundations of the rule of law.
Wrong. The sentences for the first Abu Ghraib incident were already handed down, and all of seven soldiers were convicted. This, in response to a facility where human rights abuses had been reported for a YEAR before the release of the photos caused any action to be taken, and well after an honourably-discharged US veteran had reported that war crimes were going on.
Let me remind you of exactly what the official Tagupa report on the abuses of Abu Ghraib cited as having happened:
* Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.
* Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.
* Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.
* Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.
* Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.
* Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.
* Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.
* Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.
* Writing "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked.
* Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.
* A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee
* Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.
* Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.
* Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.
* Pouring cold water on naked detainees.
* Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.
* Threatening male detainees with rape.
* Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.
* Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
* Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.
This is what the person you equated to me calls "high school pranks".
And seven lousy people got prosecuted for this. The military contractors accused of abusing prisoners continued to work there afterwards. Despite consistant testimony that this occured with everything from indifference to congratulations from higher-ups, the only high-ranking officer to be punished was the one in charge of the camp, and she was demoted, not court-martialed or dishonourably discharged.
People were killed there as well as tortured. One that's been admitted to by the military, others from testimony of both former prisoners and former American military personnel at Abu Ghraib. Other abuses, such as rape, were also reported.
Donald Rumsfeld, in his speech about the affair before the Senate Armed Services Committee, spent half of it complaining that people with digital cameras had illegally passed the incriminating photos to the media.
That's ONE incident. Not the only one, just the most famous. Not the only one where prisoners have been murdered or tortured in American custody, and despite protests by apologists that it was an "isolated incident", there have also been incidences of the same thing in Afghanistan (including the two prisoners savagely beaten to death in 2002, before the Abu Ghraib scandal even came out). Reports have continued to surface since.
Perhaps you ought to give your opinion, using actual facts and citations, as to why you think the United States government and military are taking sufficient steps to stop this.
>As for restitution, what would you consider sufficient?
How about officially issued apologies and monetary restitution to the families of those tortured and killed by American forces?
That is, you know, how OTHER countries have tried to make up for war crimes.
>Everyone is well aware of the content of the articles you >linked to. If they were the conclusive proof you claim, no >reasonable person would disagree with you - and that >should be a warning bell. Assuming your political >opponents are not reasonable people is a dangerous >habit.
I was responding to someone who considers being sodomised with a chemical lightbulb a high school prank. Why should I assume he's reasonable?
And no, I don't think many people are well aware of the content of the articles I linked to at all. For instance, earlier in this same post you called them all "suspect"; now they're common knowledge?
>Citing those articles does a fine job of whipping the >faithful into a frenzy, but nothing to convince the doubters >- the very definition of preaching to the converted, and >then there's your strident tone.
As has already been proven by you and Necratoid, people absolutely determined to believe they are right will do so in the face of any amount of evidence, and will seize upon any excuse to discount evidence presented to them.
As for strident tone... you're damn right I have a strident tone, when responding to patently offensive people. You'll notice I also made polite responses. But when confronted with an apologist for state-sanctioned torture, I give them as short shrift as I'd give, say, a racist.
>If you want to convince anyone at all that your're right, >you need to reason with your opponents, not just restate >your own position. Consider the anti-creationist sites. >They don't just say 'creationism is not worth dignifying >with a debate when its been proven utterly wrong for 150 >years', they examine each piece of creationist logic and >evidence, and they counter it. That is the way to convince >the undecided, and it is what you are failing to do.
Ironically, your own example disproves your point, in two ways.
1) Despite the fact that there is ample on- and off-line factual sources that utterly disprove Creationism, adherents of it (or Intelligent Design, or other similar nonsense) continue to believe in it and have successfully mounted campaigns to get it taught in many US schools as if it were a theory with any intellectual backing.
2) It is well-known that most scientists in the field shun Creationists and have ignored "public forums" Creationists have tried to lure them into, for precisely the reason that dignifying Creationism by responding to it is precisely what Creationists want.
You do not convince people the moon landings were faked by engaging in public debates on the issue. Engaging in a public debate gives the impression that the opposing view had validity. NASA does not have open forums with people who take this view; they dismiss them, as they should be dismissed.
Aside from that, it's not as if Necratoid has posted a single shred of evidence or logic to be debated, a fact you apparently are determined to ignore in your attempts to equate the two of us. Much like you are determined to ignore all evidence presented by me on the basis that you find one of many sources suspect.