Memos show that Abu Ghraib was authorized at higher levels

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, and it simply does not wash to have low level enlisted playing such games with prisoners.

Again, that has nothing to do with the legal opinion you linked. Focus.

Anyone knowing or participating should be jailed. Only qualified personnel should be causing any type of distress to prisoners. It shouldn't be done for fun.

I don't believe fun was mentioned in the memo. You can't stop someone from enjoying carrying out orders if that's the way that person feels.

[Wild Cobra]

Again, that has nothing to do with the legal opinion you linked. Focus.

The memo was the reason the General->Colonel was saying she was right in her actions and improperly demoted. I started making the point the General does not follow an assistance memo. He was not in her chain of command. She is using it as an excuse.

You focus.

Yes, the interrogation techniques used were likely legal ones, when done under the right supervision and cir stances. Not by kids getting their rocks off! The regular soldiers are required to follow procedures outlined in the Army Field Manual. Not a stupid memo. I could see an authority authorizing harsher techniques done by soldiers, but again, it will be done by those qualified to do so. Not sadistic pieces of .

[clambake]

no wonder my antennas never worked.

[ChumpDumper]

The memo was the reason the General->Colonel was saying she was right in her actions and improperly demoted. I started making the point the General does not follow an assistance memo. He was not in her chain of command. She is using it as an excuse.

Wow, you have completely missed the point of the memo and still have no idea what the chain of command is here.

Yes, the interrogation techniques used were likely legal ones, when done under the right supervision and cir stances. Not by kids getting their rocks off! The regular soldiers are required to follow procedures outlined in the Army Field Manual. Not a stupid memo. I could see an authority authorizing harsher techniques done by soldiers, but again, it will be done by those qualified to do so. Not sadistic pieces of .

It doesn't matter whom you order to carry out these policies. Your whole argument was that the military couldn't be ordered to do anything as a result of this memo. That was proven wrong on page 2 of the memo itself.

You were wrong.

There is no need to try to muddy the waters further since you were wrong from the outset.

[Wild Cobra]

Seriously, page 2 of the memo states that one section of the memo deals with torture as it relates to the president's powers as commander-in-chief.

Explain to us all how that can't be applied to the military.

Please stop making arguments for me that I am not making. I never said it couldn't be ordered or applied. I said the orders are not given by the attorney generals office. The memo was for use by the CIA but wasn't exclusive. It does not make it automatic military policy. It just gives a legal opinion. Not directive. In fact, a few posts back:

Yes, the interrogation techniques used were likely legal ones, when done under the right supervision and cir stances. Not by kids getting their rocks off! The regular soldiers are required to follow procedures outlined in the Army Field Manual. Not a stupid memo. I could see an authority authorizing harsher techniques done by soldiers, but again, it will be done by those qualified to do so. Not sadistic pieces of .

Only qualified personnel should be causing any type of distress to prisoners.

So you see why the Bybee memo can apply to the military.

No. At least not at any level.

Are you purposely being a stupid twit?

Page 2:

Now did you go on to read section 5:

[ChumpDumper]

Please stop making arguments for me that I am not making. I never said it couldn't be ordered or applied. I said the orders are not given by the attorney generals office. The memo was for use by the CIA but wasn't exclusive. It does not make it automatic military policy. It just gives a legal opinion. Not directive.

No it's a legal opinion.

It's a legal opinion about what the president can get away with ordering anyone under his command to do. Therefore it is applicable to the military.

Are you purposely being a stupid twit?

I know you can't help it.

Now did you go on to read section 5:

Yep, it's all about what the president can do as commander-in-chief.

That includes the military.

Thanks for going through the trouble of hosting the image to confirm my point. I appreciate it.

[SnakeBoy]

So tell me... do you support the administration, who said that Abu Ghraib was just an isolated incident by 'bad apples', or do you support the view that the soldiers were doing what they were ordered to do?

I grew up an army brat and I've served and I've never had any any doubt that this was NOT something that just a few bad apples decided to do. It just doesn't work that way and it is standard practice to throw a few lower ranking people under the bus when the military is embarrased.

Now whether or not it went all the way to the white house I never really knew but now that the tactics used at Abu Ghraib are the same as those described in the memos I think the answer is pretty clear.

None of that means I support further prosecutions, just answering the question you asked.

[Nbadan]

...the slippery slope...

First the Neocons declared, "we do not torture".
Next, they said their methods were not torture but "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Then, they said we did what we had to do and we're not apologizing for it.
NOW, they're saying...yeah, we tortured, but it worked....