Rumsfeld Defends Secretly Holding Suspect

[researchok]

If these facts do not convince you, nothing will. I have nothing else to answer. These articles are written by PRO'sPeople who know what is going on. These are facts. To you, everything seems to be opinion.

I think we not made to be a match in heaven. I have more important work to do than just try to convince you while you are brainwashed.

WHAT facts? FACTS will convince me.

Will opinion articles I post convince you? Probably not. Somehow, your opinion posts are supposed to impact me.

That there was prison abuse-- well, we all know that. The guilty will be punished. We covered that.

As usual, you have failed to address the questions I posed.

And since when do you believe everything you hear or read??

Yes, i do agree with you-- we're no match made in heaven.

I don't know what you do for as living-- but the area of my expertise doesn't hold much of a promising future for you.

Now, before you go off half cocked and call me racist again, I do work with brilliant Arab analysts. On many issues we agree, on others we don't-- but they are legitimately 'in the business'.

 

[moghrabi]

I never called racist. You called yourself. I hold a PhD. in Computer Sciences. So this area is not my expertise but i say what I believe. As to where you work I need proof not a statement. I really do not believe you even have a job sitting here in this forum all day. As for me, luckily for you, I will be back to work on Monday back from holidays. I don't think any Briiliant Arab analyst will even hire you. You are too obssessed with your twisted ideas.

Chow

 

[researchok]

Whats your point?

Those involved will be punished, as they should be, as the evidence warrants.

Facts, not opinion.

 

[moghrabi]

You are losing track of the thread. I gave my final thought and you are still babbling about facts and not opinion.

 

[researchok]

I never called racist. You called yourself. I hold a PhD. in Computer Sciences. So this area is not my expertise but i say what I believe. As to where you work I need proof not a statement. I really do not believe you even have a job sitting here in this forum all day. As for me, luckily for you, I will be back to work on Monday back from holidays. I don't think any Briiliant Arab analyst will even hire you. You are too obssessed with your twisted ideas.

Chow

Actually, you did call me a racist in a previous, earlier post.

I don't work FOR brilliant Arab analysts, I work WITH them. Had you actually READ the post, you'd have noticed that.

We are a group of self employed analysts (12), serving both private and government clients. For the most part, we avoid the office like the plague, unless we have ameeting. My time is my own.

I suppose we're at an impasse. I don't believe you have a PHd in computer science or that your family was killed by Israelis in Sabra and Shatilla.

As I said earlier, your opinion is yours to express freely. That is the beauty of living in a free, democratic society. You know, a democracy.



Ciao!

 

[moghrabi]

I know democracy more than you. What you believe is your choice. What I have or where I work is my personal thing.

This is what makes you a bigot. Even with my family gone, you still go ahead and bash arabs and Islam. What, do you really think we are not educated or we are lier such as yourself.

I really think you just started reading your first book about history and you are still on page one. You have no clue what is going on except what is going on your little mind. This what makes this world sick. People like you who keeps attacking without backing off to think if they missed something.

As for proof, I can easily proof my PhD. I await your proof.

Please do not reply to this post. I think I am getting infected with bigotry.

 

[moghrabi]

By the way, you are the one who called me an anti0-semetic. Go back and check you sick notes.

 

[researchok]

Well, lets be honest-- I realize this may be a new concept for you.

I stated the remarks you made in a another forum were anti semitic. You replied that since you were semite, that couldn't be the case.

I then pointed out to you that the word anti semite in the english language is taken to mean anti jewish.

I'm surprised at your dishonesty. While we may not agree, your deceit is somewhat unexpected.

My questioning your veracity is no attack on arabs or Islam. I was simply stating my beliefs, as you have done in your posts- stating your beliefs. I have not bashed arabs or Islam. That is another truth for you to deal with.

While your opinion is yours, I can say that if I'm reading my first book, you have read none.

As for your education and the reference to Arabs, It doesn't matter to me. Like people everywhere, some are educated, some are not.

The recent UN report on the state of Arab education is telling, however. By the way, that report was compiled by Arabs, in the region.

Lastly, you're free NOT to read my posts.

This is a forum, replys are de riguer.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Who do you work for researchok? Just curious because when I hear the words "think tank" I'm reminded of several groups of rich white guys who gather in office buildings and plan evil.

You say that the guilty will be punished in the case of the prisoner abuse scandal. It isn't abuse, first of all, it's torture. It's torture by UN standards, it's torture according to every human rights group that's spoken out on it.

There is further evidence of torture in Afghanistan and elsewhere, including South America and Africa.

The actions of the Bush regime...their attempts to evade international and domestic law...clearly make them culpable. That Rumsfeld knew of a prisoner and advised that he be kept out of sight of the Red Cross points to the problem going all the way to the top. So do memos seeking to find a way around the laws.

You said you don't believe that Mohgrabi is what he says he is. What are you? Show some proof.

 

[researchok]

First things first.

I challenged Moghrabi after he attempted to discredit me. I don't usually initiate these types of things, I only respond.

It was silly on my part to engage in that kind of behavior. It is not something I usually do.

I work with a dozen other guys, from all sides of the spectrum (only way it really works.) I agree with you re the Think Tanks-- those guys are paid to come up with a pre determined position, based on political leaning, be it left, right, or centrist. In point of fact, they aren't really analysts, per se. They're too agenda based to be credible.

Without getting into details (for obvious reasons- this is after all the internet ), our clients are private and government. We're just a small cog claming our share of the vast govt pool of money alotted to create paper (as you can see, I harbor no illusions!).

Our private clients are more intersting. They tend to want position papers that will butress their business plan, e,g., investing in certain regions, stability of local govt's, etc. As a rule, they take exception with much of what we write, though they keep coming back-- for somw reason, shareholders and directors like to be seen making sound decisions. Best part is, they pay within 30 days, unlike their govt counterparts.

Now, with regard to the abuse/torture, I stand corrected it is torture. In reality, abuse is torture, so your admonishment is correct.

Now, I'm not sure re the Rumsfeld affair, re the legality. In many ways, it is no different than the 'War Measures Act'-- that is to say, the govt can hold someone incommunicado for a predetermined period of time.

I am however, unaware of any memos that went beyond Rumsfeld, but as i said, even if they did, the legality has yet to be determined.

 

[Reverend Blair]

There were memos leaked showing that the White House sought legal advice on whether they had to follow the laws and conventions on torture. The conclusion, which have been challenged by those knowledgable in that area of the law, is that the President can do whatever he wants in time of war.

The White House was seeking a way to legalise torture. The way they found was an official okey dokey from Bush. They say that Bush never knew about it, yet under their rules he would have had to okay it.

 

[researchok]

There were memos leaked showing that the White House sought legal advice on whether they had to follow the laws and conventions on torture. The conclusion, which have been challenged by those knowledgable in that area of the law, is that the President can do whatever he wants in time of war.

The White House was seeking a way to legalise torture. The way they found was an official okey dokey from Bush. They say that Bush never knew about it, yet under their rules he would have had to okay it.

What you say may be accurate, but again, this in no way differentiates from the War Powers Act or smiliar measures.

Whether or not we agree with the policies (I'm not commenting on my own beliefs), the leader of a nation does have the right to implement policies as he sees fit, within the guidelines of legal opinion as it relates to constitutionality.

 

[Reverend Blair]

No actually, he does not have that right. The US signed conventions against torture. They helped to write those conventions. Those conventions are international law and Bush has no right to break them for any reason.

 

[researchok]

No actually, he does not have that right. The US signed conventions against torture. They helped to write those conventions. Those conventions are international law and Bush has no right to break them for any reason.

I was referring to the legal opinions at question, the opinions he sought from the JD. ( I do think that this may be an Achilles heel for Bush. If the legal opinions are completely without merit, he'll pay for it).

Of course, the President cannot circumvent treaties he has signed.