It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ABUSE CRISIS: ACLU : Bush Authorized Torture

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:49 PM
link   

as posted by MaskedAvatar
In there (somewhere) you will find what you seek about the specific methods that the FBI has called into question as applied to military intelligence. If the FBI has been unable to or has chosen not to cite the documents because the documents have already served to create the practices of military interrogation that the FBI has taken issue with, then I suspect the average ATS member will not be securing those documents. It takes somebody with the intelligence connections and without the overriding tendency to obfuscate and to apologize for the Bush administration's incompetence and corruption, to do that!



Or simply that the specific "presidential executive order" doesn't exist, period! As indicated in the E.O. I presented above, all executive orders must be forwarded to the Federal Register, for which I have provided a link to ohhh a couple pages back. But in all fairness, MaskedAvatar, time reveals all, and if such an "presidential executive order" does indeed exist it will come to light, eventually. Till then, said "presidential executive order," as alledged by the ACLU FBI-E-Mail and/or "memo," is an 'illusion' and one that again continues to amount to a speculative unconfirmed allegation.





seekerof

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Seekerof]




posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   
How is "sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs and sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc" torture? Its no where near as bad as the methods the muslims use...like cutting your head off.Big deal, OH NO they are wraping me in an israeli flag and putting me on the floor in a fetal position.LOL,that is not torture by any means.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   
The article says that the ACLU "suggests", based on a recovered FBI email, that President Bush has issued an Executive Order to authorize torture.

If there were an actual Executive Order don't you suppose that the ACLU would have that as the headline? Seekerof has shown that an Executive Order has not been issued.

So why has this thread now gone into "torture: good or bad? President Bush accused of authorizing this terrible affront to the people of America.
This accusation is based on an article that "suggests" :shk:



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Till then, said "presidential executive order," as alledged by the ACLU FBI-E-Mail and/or "memo," is an 'illusion' and one that again continues to amount to a speculative unconfirmed allegation.


Still spinning it so you can feel good about Bush I see.
For everyone out there that supports Bush: You are supporting a monster. He is a two faced lier who gets his jollies from the violence being perpitrated in his name. He is a war monger and a a dictator in disguise. He has even admitted that if America were a dictatorship, it would make his job alot easier. He said this seriously. Go ahead and support the most hated president in the history of the United States. His time will come, and when it does, I hope his end is as violent and painfull as the millions of death he will have caused by the time this is all over.

About this stupid EO. An EO is ANY given order by the president. Verbal or written. Just because there is no written documents doesnt mean he didnt verbally issue the order. You are arguing symantics when you need to be looking at the true morals of the conservative party.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   
This is a quote from that "conservative" rage Slate?

"The Clinton administration deploys troops more casually than any administration since Lyndon Johnson's: yet it spends less (1/3 less than in the mid-1980s ... "

How short is the Lib memory? The point is Billybob abused the military. Murdered children in Waco. Where is/was the outcry then or now?



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Dr.Horacid, you want to compare the massacre in Iraq and Iraqi people since bush took that country with anything Clinton did, well I guess you have selected memory.


My, my, anything for justification of our Mr. president in the white house, you will follow the devil yourself as long as it has bush face and tells is in the name of the lord and the good of the world, anything else if democrats and clinton's fault.


Nices to be so selective.


[edit on 23-12-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   

as posted by Kidfinger
About this stupid EO. An EO is ANY given order by the president. Verbal or written. Just because there is no written documents doesnt mean he didnt verbally issue the order. You are arguing symantics when you need to be looking at the true morals of the conservative party.


Beating around the "bush"? Spinning? Arguing symantics, Kidfinger?
Tell you what....
How about get your fingers from out your eyes and read a bit, k?
I have continually pointed out that an E.O. must be submitted to the Federal Registry to be valid, continually! Why the hell do I need to keep showing such proof for what I am saying? All you who yourselves continue to beat around the "bush", who continue to deny reality, and who are indeed the ones to be arguing symantics need to sit back and simply swallow the pill of truth, k? Cause this whole topic hinges on the allegations by the ACLU who are using an alledged FBI E-Mail and/or "memo" claiming and asserting that the President of the United States authorized the use of controversial methods (torture) by way of mysterious, unnamed "a/an presidential executive order," which is mentioned no less than, 12 different times!!

Again, I have repeatedly shown that if that was the case, such E.O would have had to be registered through the Office of the Federal Registry! There is NO if and or but to this. The obfuscation and symantics is being played out on your parts and not mine.

The speculation of such an E.O. is myth and will remain so till it is either produced, which I highly doubt because it simply doesn't exist, or the White House admits to there being one, along with admitting that in not submitting this damning E.O. to the Federal Register, they violated another E.O. (iExecutive Order 11030) in doing so. Again....I will draw your attention to Post Number: 1043349:


The Federal Register Act of 1935 effectively required that both executive orders and proclamations to be published in the Register.

--snip--

Regulations governing the preparation, presentation, filing, and publication of executive orders and proclamations are prescribed in E.O. 11030, as amended.

(Link given in the initial post, as linked above).


quote:
SEC. 3. Routing and certification of originals and copies. (a) If the order or proclamation as signed by the President, the original and two copies thereof shall be forwarded to the Director of the Office of the Federal Register for publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Provided, that prior to such forwarding the Seal of the United States shall be affixed to the originals of proclamations to the extent required by statute or Executive order.

(b) The Office of the Federal Register shall cause to be placed upon the copies of all Executive orders and proclamations forwarded as provided in subsection (a) of this section the following notation, to be signed by the Director or by some person authorized by him to sign such notation: "Certified to be a true copy of the original."

(Link given in initial post, as linked above).

Sheesh. Get real. This sites motto is to Deny Ignorance, comprende?






seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Still dribbling Thorfinn?
You see, you and others can claim that executive orders can be hidden, etc., but in truth, for an executive order to be considered 'valid', it must registered with the Office of the Federal Register. They are in sequencial order.
Again, a list, listed by Subject, indicates no such executive order implemented by President Bush suggesting that he authorized the use of controversial methods. I mean geez, that is what this topic is all about isn't it? TOP STORY: ACLU : Bush Authorized Torture.

This is not a matter of justifying Bush, this is a matter of whether he authorized such uses.




seekerof

[edit on 21-12-2004 by Seekerof]


with al the legal redefinition and long nights DOD CIA and rumsfield put into to make it legal to torture people you don't think they could put the same type of work into redefining what a executive order is to make it secret? At some point in time you have to take a step back and look at the pattern of the bush administration. Plant false news stories, draw up 50 page memos on how to make torture legal, deny all transparency, push agencies to put their seal on intel that isn't real. Once you identify the pattern of facts you can get a good idea of the direction of the administration and the country. What ever happened to the good ole days when our biggest worries were some guy getting a blow job from an intern? I'd take that over this any day of the week.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   
JOHNSmith,
This topic is not about Rumsfield, FBI, or the CIA authorizations or uses of controversial methods. It revolves around the claims of the ACLU that the President alledgedly authorized such uses by way of "a/an executive order," k?




seekerof



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
JOHNSmith,
This topic is not about Rumsfield, FBI, or the CIA authorizations or uses of controversial methods. It revolves around the claims of the ACLU that the President alledgedly authorized such uses by way of "a/an executive order," k?




seekerof


Bush doesn't wipe his dribble without consulting his team, I was pointing out that if it is indeed the case that there is a secret executive order, per example they could hold a "black box" meeting where only specific officials would be present, for the federal registry only a small handful of people there would know about the order and it can be secret. The federal registry is not required to release all records, for something like this to be a secret is not far fetched or unlikely given the pattern of the bush administration. This falls into the realm of the very likely, it fits the bush pattern. The ACLU has a good record, the likeliness of the FOIA giving them false records is well, has that ever happened before? It's time to look at the facts until they are proved as untrue or some how corrupted we have to assume they are valid.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

My, my, anything for justification of our Mr. president in the white house, you will follow the devil yourself as long as it has bush face and tells is in the name of the lord and the good of the world
[edit on 23-12-2004 by marg6043]


OK. can you tell me where you are getting your information that President Bush has authorized torture? Please give me a link.

The article for this thread does not prove that the President authorized torture. And, while we are about it, how do we know that the email is authentic?

How could President Bush prove that he did not write an Executive Order? There is no Executive Order. Therefore he can't prove he didn't do it? This whole thing doesn't make sense.

You and others say there doesn't have to be an executive order. That President Bush does this in secret. How do you know? Is it what you would do so that is why you accuse the President of doing it?

If you do have a link to prove that the President has authorized torture, please post it. I really want to know the truth. And right now it sounds like Seekerof is the only one who makes any sense. :shk:



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   
People have wondered for years about why Bush keeps Rumsfeld around. After so many gross failures, even some of Bush's team wants to use him as the next excuse the US losing Iraq. Still though, Bush supports him. Why? Maybe now we know. I always suspected that Rumsfeld had some dirt on Bush, that's what keeps him at his job. Maybe the dirt is Bush's authorizing murder and torture of innocent people (suspects, if that will make you feel any better)?



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Bush hating is a sickness. No amount of fact will work. No amount of research, data, or anything else. The only thing important is the allegation. Deny Ignorance are just words...............



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   

as posted by JOHNSmith
The federal registry is not required to release all records...


Certainly beg to differ. Here:


Other functions are to appraise and make reports to Congress regarding records proposed for disposal by Government agencies that do not, or that will not after the lapse of a specified time, appear to have sufficient administrative, legal, research, or other value to warrant their continued preservation by the Government; and to receive and publish the texts and codes of all Presidential proclamations and Executive orders and of rules and regulations issued by Federal agencies that have general applicability and legal effect.

National Archives



Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.

The text of Executive orders appears in the daily Federal Register as each Executive order is signed by the President and received by the Office of the Federal Register. The text of Executive orders beginning with Executive Order 7316 of March 13, 1936, also appears in the sequential editions of Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

NOTE: The total number of Executive orders issued for each administration includes number-and-letter designated orders, such as 9577-A, 9616-A, etc

--snip--

These tables contain information about Executive orders beginning with those signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. They are arranged according to Presidential administration and year of signature.

These tables are compiled and maintained by Editors of the Office of the Federal Register and include the following information:

Executive order number;
Date of signing by the President;
Federal Register volume, page number, and issue date;
Title;
Amendments (if any); and
Current status (where applicable)

About Executive Orders

This very site compiles them on a weekly basis, also.

To those who have contested what I have said, the only plausible way that the President can circumvent the 'system' is by:


Fourth, although the president is required to publish executive orders in the Register, he has a loophole in that only a number may be used to register those orders that pertain to sensitive matters, such as national security. Therefore, he may record secret orders under the guise of sensitive matters.

Executive Orders

That's all I will grant you.
So here and now, I will openly admit that a "loop-hole" may or does exist, but will likewise say that an "allegation" is just that, an allegation, amounting to no proofs and evidences whatsoever, but speculation. This particular "executive order" remains to be seen and until then, the benefit of the doubt rest with the President. One is innocent till proven guilty, and I have yet to see undeniable evidences to reasonably prove that the President of the United States authorized, through the use of "a/an executive order," the use of controversial methods (torture) other than this particular allegation, for which even the ACLU openly admits to just merely wanting to know if the President authorized such uses, by way of said "executive order". Seems even they are expecting the President to reveal and say as much, but as of late, the President has denied such.

As I have said earlier, time will only tell, I suppose.




seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree

1. OK. can you tell me where you are getting your information that President Bush has authorized torture? Please give me a link.

2. The article for this thread does not prove that the President authorized torture. And, while we are about it, how do we know that the email is authentic?

3. How could President Bush prove that he did not write an Executive Order? There is no Executive Order. Therefore he can't prove he didn't do it? This whole thing doesn't make sense.

4. You and others say there doesn't have to be an executive order. That President Bush does this in secret. How do you know? Is it what you would do so that is why you accuse the President of doing it?

5. If you do have a link to prove that the President has authorized torture, please post it. I really want to know the truth. And right now it sounds like Seekerof is the only one who makes any sense. :shk:


1. Look around, there's plenty of leaked classisfied memos, articles etc.. the groundwork for this was laid out quit a while ago this does seem the direction the Bush administration was heading in this direction in 2001 when they wrote the 50 page memo on how to circumvent the Geneva convention to torture people.

2. The e-mail was given to the ACLU by the federal government, the authenticity is more likely than not good. If you want to use the type of logic that demands definitive proof of something's authenticity you may find your self questioning reality to the point of insanity. Hell if you saw the guy write the e-mail himself you could still say he was brainwashed and possessed by aliens so it's false. How far can you justify something before you get to the point that there is no real point of definitive proof, you have to go with what you have.

3. Bush could prove that he didn't write the EO by making the government transparent. But seeing the pattern of secrecy in the administration I think it is apparent that's not going to happen. There could very well be a EO that secret within the federal registry, it is a possible to do. To say Bush did not issue a EO hold less proof than to say he does, in fact there is a boat of evidence pointing toward a EO that says this. Go do some research.

4. No, it fits the patterns of the Bush administration. They wrote a 50 page classisfied memo on how to get away with doing this and than they did it! THe memo was leaked to the washington post, go look it up.

5. While we're at it why don't you find a link that proves you were born? Got a birth certificate? You can forge those you know. How do we know anything, we have to go with what we have but to flat out deny there's any truth to it is in my opinion tunnel-vision.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Here's some follow-up to this story...

War Crimes




THANKS TO a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other human rights groups, thousands of pages of government documents released this month have confirmed some of the painful truths about the abuse of foreign detainees by the U.S. military and the CIA -- truths the Bush administration implacably has refused to acknowledge.


So who exactly should be held responble? There is a saying to the effect that the one in charge is the one to blame.

Either way, it is nigh impossible that these procedures could have been going on for years under the noses of this administration. Given this administrations past acts, this is just another symptom of the disease called Bush...



[edit on 23-12-2004 by Thorfinn Skullsplitter]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
So who exactly should be held responble? There is a saying to the effect that the one in charge is the one to blame.


There's another saying in the sun tzu, it basically says a general will take a bullet for the commander and chief. Wonder who's going to take this one? Maybe those solders who were doing the torture they were ordered to do and now will spend time in jail for it. I'm sure if you dig deep enough people will start taking these "bullets" and bush will walk.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I would suppose that this article is expressly naming Rumsfield, of the Bush Administration. Is does beg one to consider that if Rumsfield gave authorization, then who gave Rumsfield the authorization or did he act entirely independent?

Yeah, even as a Bush supporter, I will again grant you that. But regardless of the proofs against Rumsfield, I will assert that other than the mysterious "executive order," I am skeptical of the presidents involvement, but hey, you guys know me...

Perhaps I give to much benefit of the doubt to the President... But in this expressed case, it will require more than has been alledged for me to believe that the President authorized such uses, IMHO.




seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofYeah, even as a Bush supporter, I will again grant you that. But regardless of the proofs against Rumsfield, I will assert that other than the mysterious "executive order," I am skeptical of the presidents involvement.




seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]


Why? with all the lies, creating offices to plant false articles in the papers, pushing to attack Iraq without real cause or legal justification, the man can't even tell the truth about what's under his shirt. I'm very curious what has this man done for you to earn this respect. I like many other have benefited from Bush being in office on a financial basis but I find it very easy to take a look at what's been done and what's being done and this fits very nicely into it. It may not be true, I'm not psychic over here but if bush hadn't done so many deceitful things this would be much more easily dismissed by everyone including myself.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by J0HNSmith]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I would suppose that this article is expressly naming Rumsfield, of the Bush Administration. Is does beg one to consider that if Rumsfield gave authorization, then who gave Rumsfield the authorization or did he act entirely independent?

Yeah, even as a Bush supporter, I will again grant you that. But regardless of the proofs against Rumsfield, I will assert that other than the mysterious "executive order," I am skeptical of the presidents involvement, but hey, you guys know me...

Perhaps I give to much benefit of the doubt to the President... But in this expressed case, it will require more than has been alledged for me to believe that the President authorized such uses, IMHO.

seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]


It would be nice if I could be supportive of a president as you are, Seekerof. But take into consideration the inherent corruption that comes with being a human who has power. It's not like corruption of this magnitude is unheard by any stretch of the imagination. And the evidence continues to pile up against this administration that there is a great deal of wrong doing.

From the U.N. presentation by Powell that he later admitted wasn't as "acurate" as he hoped. To the missing WMD's we were threatened with daily. To to forgotten spectre of Bin Laden. To the no bid contracts given to a company whom the Vice President just so happens to have a financial interest in. To the electronic voting machine manufaturers who are known to have contributed to the republican campaign. To the torture scandal we are now talking about. And I just scratched the surface with these quick mentions.

And these people continue to get away with their crimes, using our tax money to make themselves and their friends increasingly rich...




top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join