Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In typical fashion, you quote the BBC*. Why don't you follow the lead of your buddy Tyrone and read all the blogs and report the full story - that Rumsfeld refuted such techniques as early as December 2002
|
I posted the link, which makes the point that Rumsfeld authorized the stripping naked and menacing with dogs, and then changed his mind in December 2002. We're only now hearing how effective this change of mind was --- guess it didn't percolate down as quickly as the authorization did.
If the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the prisoners we take in the War on Terror,
and we're somehow proud of this innovation, maybe we should have been more upfront about it. You know, to let AQ operatives know they'd be cupping their nuts in front of a German Shepherd if we got ahold of them. Something tells me Rumsfeld didn't want this to get out for a reason.
Quote:
|
Not that you deem me a "bright" one around here, but my dimm [sic] bulb can see a clear difference between the initial rules laid down for stateless-combatants at Gitmo, then evaluated and renounced thereafter, and refuted before becoming the MO at Abu.
|
What a crock of shit. Rumsfeld's "refutation" of that dichotomy was apparently intellectually ineffective --- people on this board are still relying on the "stateless combatants" theory to justify whatever happened at
both Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. Once again, Slave, you've shown you have poor taste in friends. Um, I mean, allies. Let me help you out here --- if you find yourself arguing on the side of one-joke socks like Not Me and Club, it's time to pause and reflect. Bathe in the healing light of liberalism, and let your sins be washed clean.
