Pentagon blocks release of more Abu Ghraib material

Ok, I admit it, I'm actually SamFisher also. May as well come clean.

By the way moon, I've never met three people from the bbs. Caught you lying again brah.

 

Sam Fisher? Nah.....

LHutz? Maybe.....

 

If bigtexxx and Trader_Jorge are twins, who is the older brother?

 

i was thinking they might be siamese twins connected by the head and they have to share one brain...that would explain alot.

 

You haven't caught me lying even once. I have talked with three people who claim to have met both you and your brother. Take it up with them...."brah."

BTW, "brah" is a term generally reserved for someone that you have at least a cordial relationship with. Since you have earned my unconditional derision, please refrain from using colloquialisms that indicate that you hold any kind of esteem with me. Thanks in advance.

 

Make an exception, brah.

 

You are a liar. You don't even know it. That's what's funny.

 

If (and that is a HUGE if) I am a liar, then this statement is most accurately described as "pot, meet kettle."

I seriously doubt you could find even a single instance of a "lie" that I have posted on this board, particularly if you apply the same definition of that term that you apply to GWB and his...exaggerations.

I mean, for crying out loud, you proclaim yourself the "unanimous" champion of the challenge you ran away from. Who is the liar here?

 

For you, no problem. For texxx, not a chance.

 

You are a liar. You don't even know it.
_______________

This would cause him to be mistaken ~ not a liar.

Big difference - if it's even true that Andymoon has made an error.

 

Well, if you and the twins hate each other, terrorists win.

 

I don't hate either of the twins. I think that both of them have had way to much of the Bush flavored kool-aid, but the only thing I hate about them is their inability to hold a reasoned debate or put forth a rational argument. I truly despise their constant bashing of anyone left of Rush Limbaugh, but I do not care enough to hate either of them as people.

 

emily litella speaks:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html

An article on Saturday about a federal judge's order regarding photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal misstated a deadline and the response by Defense Department lawyers. The government was given until Friday to black out some identifying details in the material, not to release it. Defense Department lawyers met that deadline, but asked the court to block the public release of the materials. They did not refuse to cooperate with an order for the materials' release.

 

basso your link doesn't work. I mean it works, but I can't find the linked paragraph. Could this be a correction from yesterday?

 

name them, or you're a liar. Easy enough brah

 

I don't have to prove I'm not a liar. I already know that. You are welcome to make baseless accusations if you like, but everyone here knows already that said accusations are your (and your brother's) speciality, not mine.

Besides, I am not going to betray the confidence of the people who have met y'all and told me about it. If they feel like chiming in here, that is their choice, but you and I know that y'all have attended cf.net events and Rox games where y'all have been seen by cf.net posters.

 

Didn't want to start a new thread, but I thought this might be an interesting side note.

Why do military Lawyers hate America?

---------------------------

Military's Opposition to Harsh Interrogation Is Outlined
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: July 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 27 - Senior military lawyers lodged vigorous and detailed dissents in early 2003 as an administration legal task force concluded that President Bush had authority as commander in chief to order harsh interrogations of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, newly disclosed documents show.

Despite the military lawyers' warnings, the task force concluded that military interrogators and their commanders would be immune from prosecution for torture under federal and international law because of the special character of the fight against terrorism.

In memorandums written by several senior uniformed lawyers in each of the military services as the legal review was under way, they had urged a sharply different view and also warned that the position eventually adopted by the task force could endanger American service members.

The memorandums were declassified and released last week in response to a request from Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Mr. Graham made the request after hearings in which officers representing the military's judge advocates general acknowledged having expressed concerns over interrogation policies.

The documents include one written by the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, advising the task force that several of the "more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law" as well as military law.

General Rives added that many other countries were likely to disagree with the reasoning used by Justice Department lawyers about immunity from prosecution. Instead, he said, the use of many of the interrogation techniques "puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad."

Any such crimes, he said, could be prosecuted in other nations' courts, international courts or the International Criminal Court, a body the United States does not formally participate in or recognize.

Other senior military lawyers warned in tones of sharp concern that aggressive interrogation techniques would endanger American soldiers taken prisoner and also diminish the country's standing as a leader in "the moral high road" approach to the laws of war.

The memorandums provide the most complete record to date of how uniformed military lawyers were frequently the chief dissenters as government officials formulated interrogation policies.

"These military lawyers were clearly disturbed by the proposed techniques that were deviations from past practices that were being advocated by the Justice Department," said Senator Graham, himself a former military lawyer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/politics/28abuse.html?

 

yeah, and the times doesn't have a permalink.

 

What a liar. Literally none of the above is true.

andymoon = MacBeth?

 

So after having your arguments shot down, are you reduced to conversation on who met you or didn't meet you?