Is Egypt bad for the US and Israel?

[ginjawarrior]

Approved by law? Who's law? Poland or Saudi? What about on the high seas aboard a Panama Registry freighter. What does law have to do with it? You think we are bound by law over here? No. The 9th A says, try anything you want. Now, extend that to the C & C, elected Civilian Authority.

She almost, but, not quite cannot break any law by definition as long a supporter will do it in a deniable way. Be real. Watergate was the tip of an Ice Cube. Nothing on tape these days.

A President is not above the law he is beyond the reach of it. Only one President has even been arrested. Franklin Peirce. A reckless auto case. He ran over a woman. To this day no President may drive an auto on the Road. Bush went down to his ranch.

A President has to be caught, convicted and still can't be removed except for high crimes and misdemeanors, treason and such. Then he can simply resign and be pardoned by the VP. See how this works? Beyond the law, but not beyond assassination by the house guard.

Not should. IS.

Fuck me your full of shit today aren't you?

Trying to save face after not knowing the hidden meaning of "negative"?

 

[echelon1k1]

fuck me you haven't even read the fucking thing your linking to have you?

Those techniques are listed as part of the better quality pdf I linked to

They list none of what you listed

Tell you what tell me what page you found your list on? Go on fucking read it before you bring it here pretending it says what it doesn't....

Tell me the names of techniques on there



EDIT: I have asked for only one thing evidence of current use of torture as bemoaned by Keynes. That your a fuckwit who's incapable of understanding that doesn't mean goalposts have been moved

The only fuckwit here is the dunce that doesn't understand the difference between "Interrogation techniques” and “Interrogation approaches”... Not my problem wiki didn't tell you that...

 

[ginjawarrior]

The only fuckwit here is the dunce that doesn't understand the difference between "Interrogation techniques” and “Interrogation approaches”... Not my problem wiki didn't tell you that...

So you cannot find which page in the manual that has your list?

Or even name the techniques?

Or link to anything that backs what your saying



Cool story bro



I have linked directly to the appropriate sources you pulled a list out of thin air what has wiki got to do with?

 

[echelon1k1]

So you cannot find which page in the manual that has your list?

If you remember you asked for “the 19 approved techniques would come under the classification of "enhanced interrogation"” and I listed those.

You DID NOT ask for the “18 approved interrogation approach techniques” as listed in 8-18/FM 2-22.3 (pg 144-160)

Wiki incorrectly states there are 19 approved approach techniques when the manual states there is actually 18. That’s how I know you HAVE NOT read the manual and have relied on wiki...

Or even name the techniques?

Interrogation techniques or Approach Techniques? See above...

Or link to anything that backs what your saying

Google any word in the list i posted... You know how to do that?

Cool story bro I have linked directly to the appropriate sources you pulled a list out of thin air what has wiki got to do with?

Your whole argument is based on wiki and you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about... Try again

 

[ginjawarrior]

If you remember you asked for “the 19 approved techniques would come under the classification of "enhanced interrogation"” and I listed those.

You DID NOT ask for the “18 approved interrogation approach techniques” as listed in 8-18/FM 2-22.3 (pg 144-160)

Wiki incorrectly states there are 19 approved approach techniques when the manual states there is actually 18. That’s how I know you HAVE NOT read the manual and have relied on wiki...

they are the only approved techniques and I was asking which of those approved techniques would be considered "enhanced

Interrogation techniques or Approach Techniques? See above...

Knock yourself out any of the above you can find in the pdf you linked to

I wanna see you read it seeing as you posted it here pretending you knew what it said

Google any word in the list i posted... You know how to do that?

You found the list show me the link where you found it

Your whole argument is based on wiki and you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about... Try again

no I have read both the executive order and the manual

You've been talking thru your ease thru out this

 

[echelon1k1]

I wanna see you read it seeing as you posted it here pretending you knew what it said

I read it that’s why there is 18 approach techniques listed not “nineteen” as stated on wiki

Same with your demonstrated ignorance in assuming no "enhanced interrogation techniques" are still in use... Currently there are six in use and the EO allows that to lawfully continue...

Section 1. Revocation. Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order. Heads of departments and agencies shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, and regulations of their respective departments or agencies are consistent with this order. Upon request, the Attorney General shall provide guidance about which directives, orders, and regulations are inconsistent with this order

You found the list show me the link where you found it

The list of “enhanced interrogation techniques” was compiled from a variety of sources; i urge you to “google”

no I have read both the executive order and the manual

You have not and have already proven why... 18 Approach Techniques not “nineteen”

You've been talking thru your ease* thru out this

You seem to say that alot when you’re caught out in your ignorance and wiki cannot provide... one too many guv’? Or is ease* some kind of cockney derivative...

 

[ginjawarrior]

I read it that’s why there is 18 approach techniques listed not “nineteen” as stated on wiki

Same with your demonstrated ignorance in assuming no "enhanced interrogation techniques" are still in use... Currently there are six in use and the EO allows that to lawfully continue...

enhanced techniques would be the ones you listed out of thin air... nothing like that is in the manual including the six that your pretending say otherwise

And why not quote the content of the article rather than the preamble?

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order:(a) "Army Field Manual 2 22.3" means FM 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations, issued by the Department of the Army on September 6, 2006.
(b) "Army Field Manual 34-52" means FM 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation, issued by the Department of the Army on May 8, 1987.
(c) "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions.
(d) "Convention Against Torture" means the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, December 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100 20 (198.
(e) "Geneva Conventions" means:
(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);
(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);
(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and
(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).
(f) "Treated humanely," "violence to life and person," "murder of all kinds," "mutilation," "cruel treatment," "torture," "outrages upon personal dignity," and "humiliating and degrading treatment" refer to, and have the same meaning as, those same terms in Common Article 3.
(g) The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.
Sec. 3. Standards and Practices for Interrogation of Individuals in the Custody or Control of the United States in Armed Conflicts.
(a) Common Article 3 Standards as a Minimum Baseline. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States.
(b) Interrogation Techniques and Interrogation-Related Treatment. Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes. Where processes required by the Manual, such as a requirement of approval by specified Department of Defense officials, are inapposite to a department or an agency other than the Department of Defense, such a department or agency shall use processes that are substantially equivalent to the processes the Manual prescribes for the Department of Defense. Nothing in this section shall preclude the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or other Federal law enforcement agencies, from continuing to use authorized, non-coercive techniques of interrogation that are designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or promises.
(c) Interpretations of Common Article 3 and the Army Field Manual. From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government may, in conducting interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2 22.3, but may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2 22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34 52 issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.

The list of “enhanced interrogation techniques” was compiled from a variety of sources; i urge you to “google”

as I said out your arse... I'm not trawling David icke and prison planet forums for this drivel

You have not and have already proven why... 18 Approach Techniques not “nineteen”

I've linked to the manual and I've read through the relevant section

And again nothing in your list is in there please tell me where I should look

You seem to say that alot when you’re caught out in your ignorance and wiki cannot provide... one too many guv’? Or is ease* some kind of cockney derivative...

Spellchecker changing words I don't want it to "arse" is correct

And you still haven't shown anything but a list you scavenged from many corners of the web

 

[UncleBuck]

ginja, it's useless to try to argue with the aussie.

he was in on the plot that got bin laden and even knows what intelligence led to the courier and how and where it came from.

he also thinks that the the muslim brotherhood infiltrated the egyptian army over the course of decades only to oust MB president morsi and then slaughter hundreds of MB morsi supporters.

he is clearly in on the highest levels of advanced intelligence and not just armchair quarterbacking his way through PTSD and glory days of war mongering gone by.

 

[echelon1k1]

enhanced techniques would be the ones you listed out of thin air... nothing like that is in the manual including the six that your pretending say otherwise

I told you before not all orders were revoked under obamas EO13491, the following memo WAS NOT revoked under said order;

http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/aclu-ii-041306-2.pdf The language in the EO is very precise and validates the memo as it complies with the order.

Section one in EO13491 states the following;

Section 1. Revocation. Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009

As you can see the abovementioned in the memo is consistent with the order, so as such not all the bush era EIT's were scrapped and some still remain in use today.

And why not quote the content of the article rather than the preamble?
as I said out your arse... I'm not trawling David icke and prison planet forums for this drivel

*Section one deals with what’s being revoked and the bolded is relevant to the conversation at hand even though it went over your head. Nice try at misdirection there douche especially by bringing your uncle into it, please don’t try a plug one of his garbage books, we don’t care about lizard people.

I've linked to the manual and I've read through the relevant sectionAnd again nothing in your list is in there please tell me where I should look

The below quote is from a very relevant section. From FM 2-22.3;

8-18. There are 18 approach techniques that can be employed on any detainee regardless of status or characterization, including EPWs. Additionally, there is one restricted interrogation technique called separation (see Appendix M).

Spellchecker changing words I don't want it to "arse" is correct

And you still haven't shown anything but a list you scavenged from many corners of the web

Spell checker doesn’t change 19 to 18... See above

 

[echelon1k1]

ginja, it's useless to try to argue with the aussie.

yeah wouldn't want to compare your wife to a walrus.... for the third time

he was in on the plot that got bin laden and even knows what intelligence led to the courier and how and where it came from.

You claimed that remember, not me... Along with the mention of KFC implying "racial resentment"

he also thinks that the the muslim brotherhood infiltrated the egyptian army over the course of decades only to oust MB president morsi and then slaughter hundreds of MB morsi supporters.

There you go again, Morsi IS NOT the president of the muslim brotherhood... we've been over this before buckwheat...

he is clearly in on the highest levels of advanced intelligence and not just armchair quarterbacking his way through PTSD and glory days of war mongering gone by.

"looking back, except for the fact that i have met my wife*, i would probably take the deal knowing what i know now"

 

[ginjawarrior]

I told you before not all orders were revoked under obamas EO13491, the following memo WAS NOT revoked under said order;

http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/aclu-ii-041306-2.pdf The language in the EO is very precise and validates the memo as it complies with the order.

Section one in EO13491 states the following;



As you can see the abovementioned in the memo is consistent with the order, so as such not all the bush era EIT's were scrapped and some still remain in use today.

none of the are torture or be even close to torture

And If you spent a couple of minutes to read that pdf you keep posting you'd know that

The below quote is from a very relevant section. From FM 2-22.3;





Spell checker doesn’t change 19 to 18... See above

18 plus an additional one?

You found the right section now which one of those (with your 6 in there too) would you say describe "enhanced interrogation" (you know the kind that is torture)?

 

[echelon1k1]

none of the are torture or be even close to torture

I never claimed them to be, you did that all by your lonesome...

And If you spent a couple of minutes to read that pdf you keep posting you'd know that

Yet I'm the one pointing it out to you... Coolest story bra...

18 plus an additional one?

That's right, 18 Interrogation approaches and 1 interrogation technique.

You found the right section now which one of those (with your 6 in there too) would you say describe "enhanced interrogation" (you know the kind that is torture)?

Again, Approaches not EITs.

 

[Doer]

There is this guy at work....

Me: Oh, come on. That's not right, is it? It is this.
He: Oh no. You are confused that is what I ALWAYS meant.

Cool trick of passive aggressive stupidity is all. It is not like it fools anyone. But the one does look foolish.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I never claimed them to be, you did that all by your lonesome...

I asked for evidence for it pages ago is this your admission there is none?

Yet I'm the one pointing it out to you... Coolest story bra...

Oh I see your pointing out that all along your pdf didn't show what you claimed it did...

That's right, 18 Interrogation approaches and 1 interrogation technique.

yet none are enhanced interrogation techniques right? You know what I asked evidence for?

Again, Approaches not EITs.

Is that because there s no evidence of current use of EIT?

you've spent pages proving you couldn't post what I asked for yet your sitting there with a shitstained grin on your face

 

[echelon1k1]

Not my fault you cannot read... http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/aclu-ii-041306-2.pdf

 

[UncleBuck]

There you go again, Morsi IS NOT the president of the muslim brotherhood... we've been over this before buckwheat...

we have been over this, and i agree that "Morsi IS NOT the president of the muslim brotherhood". morsi was the muslim's brotherhood's candidate, and he was president. this is beyond dispute. he was the muslim brotherhood president of egypt.

that you have trouble with this language is due to you reading compensation.

also, why would the egyptian military oust the muslim brotherhood candidate and murder thousands of his supporters if the muslim brotherhood spent decades infiltrating the egyptian military until they were basically the same thing, as you claimed?

you have never answered that, my confused little aussie friend.*

answer the question or i'll bait you into another ban, like i did a couple weeks ago. just go ahead and say what we all know.

"looking back, except for the fact that i have met my wife*, i would probably take the deal knowing what i know now"

why not link back to that quote?

i know you got duped into the war mongering and now think that entitles you to leach off the government for free, but it does not. i am very glad that unlike you, i was not duped into the war monger cheese.

actually, i'm pretty sure they didn't even have to dupe you. that was the only job that would hire you: bullet catcher for a pointless conflict.*

be proud of that.*

 

[ginjawarrior]

Not my fault you cannot read... http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/aclu-ii-041306-2.pdf

you must be mistaken as the PDF you just posted by your own admission doesn't contain anything that would be classed as "enhanced interrogation techniques"

At best they are "interrogation techniques"

They even go into detail about how the prisoner isn't to be physically harmed.

So you have got no evidence that it continues apart from a 2006 memo that doesn't support you

 

[UncleBuck]

Not my fault you cannot read...

morsi was the muslim brotherhood president.

the egyptian military (the same thing as the muslim brotherhood) ousted morsi.

then they slaughtered his followers.

why?

apparently, they didn't spend enough decades with their infiltration plan, eh?

LOL!

you fucking joke.

go tend to your foreskin retraction problems.

 

[echelon1k1]

we have been over this, and i agree that "Morsi IS NOT the president of the muslim brotherhood". morsi was the muslim's brotherhood's candidate, and he was president. this is beyond dispute. he was the muslim brotherhood president of egypt.

Thank you for admitting your mistake - only took you a week...

that you have trouble with this language is due to you reading compensation.

No reading compensation issues here, KFC is a fast food outlet not coded buck speak for "racial resentment" choom boy...

also, why would the egyptian military oust the muslim brotherhood candidate and murder thousands of his supporters if the muslim brotherhood spent decades infiltrating the egyptian military until they were basically the same thing, as you claimed? you have never answered that, my confused little aussie friend.*[/

So they expelled every Muslim Brotherhood member and sympathiser in the ranks? They were able to identify them all; even in their cell structure? Didn't think so Bob...

answer the question or i'll bait you into another ban, like i did a couple weeks ago. just go ahead and say what we all know.

LOL "bait" - How are things over in Collins county?

why not link back to that quote? i know you got duped into the war mongering and now think that entitles you to leach off the government for free, but it does not. i am very glad that unlike you, i was not duped into the war monger cheese.

Joined before war was declared, loved it and would do it again, knowing what I know now... You're confusing me with your AC* buddy AC*...

actually, i'm pretty sure they didn't even have to dupe you. that was the only job that would hire you: bullet catcher for a pointless conflict.* be proud of that.*

LOL... From the man who's wife WONT LET him get a gun because she's a natural born bullet catcher... Keep on a failing wannabe

 

[UncleBuck]

So they expelled every Muslim Brotherhood member and sympathiser in the ranks? They were able to identify them all; even in their cell structure? Didn't think so Bob...

yep, just hold to the theory. the more it fails, the more correct it is, eh?

the egyptiam military is slaughtering the muslim brotherhood to cover the fact that they are the same thing, right?

you are a fucking joke. the rest of your lame comebacks are not even worth humoring with a response, walrus fucker.