ABUSE CRISIS: ACLU : Bush Authorized Torture

Maybe it wasn't "a/an executive order"? Perhaps it was a military order?

AUTHORITY: By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224) and sections 821 and 836 of title 10, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

--snip--

C. ACLU Concerns:

--snip--

c) interrogation techniques permitted what would constitute torture to obtain information. Violates Geneva Convention. Reason given for using it was that the government was not getting much information from detainees so they stepped up their efforts. Now, those photographed engaging in unlawful actions are being court martialed. Administration claims it did not approve techniques, although there is evidence that they knew about it and actually put pressure on officials to deliver more intelligence. Rumfeld has classified documents as secret, not to be revealed until 2013. Claimed getting evidence was primary goal. Defendants may be able to use the good faith, defense of necessity, or superior orders, self defence. Convention against Torture was approved in 1984 and ratified by US in 1994. “NO exceptional circumstances, whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any public emergency may be invoked as a justification for torture.

-methods not viewed as torture used including denying food, clothing, subject to body cavity searches, sleep deprivation for 96 hours and shackling them in stress positions, physical or mental pain ( it must be severe); giving mind altering drugs, threatening the life of love ones., isolation or take action against religious and cultural practices like shaving beard, deprive of light and sound, catering to individual phobias like fear of dogs, or use of dogs

President Issues Military Order: Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism





seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Bush himself can come out of in the public and said "I agreed with the torture of citizens" and still people will find an excuse to keep make him a martyr.

Because of "denying ignorance" we are being able to see all the dirty secrets our administration has.

But again Bush and his cronies does not bad in the eyes of their followers.

They are for the "good of the nation"

the question now that you know is what are you going to do about it?
And its just a matter of time before these laws are turned on americans as well, you do know that

Yeah Marg....right....Your imput in all this research and fact finding is what?
Here is what Mr. Roth, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch says:

The FBI e-mail "is not proof of a presidential order to commit unlawful acts, but it strongly suggests that US interrogators thought they were acting with the president's approval."

White House says new prisoner abuse claims need to be investigated

Again, the President's authoritive approval in all this is exactly where?
Nothing thus far but allegations, Marg....something that you have only contributed: allegations.






seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Come to think about it, it's no surprise really that he would do something like that. Why would he care about enemy combatants when he is prepared to send American men and women to be ducks in a shooting gallery ?

Originally posted by Seekerof

That's all I will grant you.
So here and now, I will openly admit that a "loop-hole" may or does exist,

Its nice to see you realize what we have been hinting to all along. Now that you know the Bush can authorize an EO without turning it in, lets see what else we know.
We have an E-mail from the FBI that alleges Bush authorized torture.
We have the "Loophole".

Now lets look at the moral character:

We know that Bush has lied in the past on more than one occasion.
We know that Bush made his first million of the BinLaden family.
We know his family has had many shady dealings with the Saudi's in the past.
We know that Bush claims to be an extension of the Lords wishes.
I could go on, but you get the picture. He is not the guy he wants you to believe he is. The evidence is right before your eyes, yet you refuse to see it. He deals and supports regimes that harbor terrorist. He supports countries that beileve in murder and "Honor Killings". He supports everything he says he is agianst. He attacks countries illegally and they are always a country that doesnt stand a chance agianst the mighty Bush war machine. He has even bankrupted a few multimillion dollar business, and now he is doing the same with America and its Social Security system. Bush is a shady character who is quite capable of authorizing this EO on torture and filed it away under the National Security Act.

So now we have a person who could do something like what is being alledged. We also have An E-mail From the FBI thats states there is an EO that allows this torture. And we have undisputable proof of the torture that has been committed. Did you see the pics of the John Walker interrogation by the FBI? Do a google and tell me if you still think using a dull garot isnt torture.

Scott Peterson got the death penalty with less evidence

[edit on 12/23/04 by Kidfinger]

From an alternate angle, Kidfinger, your case might be so, and yet 2+2 does not clearly equal 4 in this case. There is only an allegation. And again, though I have admitted openly as much as I have, I will again refer you to Post Number: 1044323, where Mr. Roth asserts that the FBI E-Mail, obtained by the ACLU holds no case or clear cut 2+2=4 proof.





seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]

I wonder if you could atleast admit that the circumstancial evidence against the administration is bordering on, if not overwhelming. And Kid did make a good point. People have been convincted of murder for less...

And that may be so...Thorfinn.
Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily enough to condemn, proclaim, and continue to assert, based again on allegations, that the President authorized the use of controversial methods, despite past and near-present legal cases. I see the pattern, and I see a possible loop-hole, and admit as much, but again, as I postulated previously, did Rumsfield, CIA, FBI, and the military act through the approval of and directly from the President or was this taken and made independently? You get over one hurdle, there are a number more to go before such an allegation is proven, again despite circumstantial evidences, that the President authorized such uses.
The President is not Scott Peterson, neither are the cases the same. What may be seen and viewed as circumstantial to convict in one case may be not seen as such when applied to another case. Despite your, and others, apparent hatred of the President, we are talking the Office of the Presidency here. When you bring and level serious charges and allegations against said Office, you'd better be bringing more than heresay, allegations, and circumstantial evidences.



seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Look, I know its mostly circumstantial evidence, but my God man! how much more do you need? The mounting evidence agians Bush is ovewhelming. The only other thing that could happen is for Bush to come and knock on your door and tell you he did it. And yes, people have been convicted for murder for less. So where is the legal system now? Oh, thats right, the economic power.........

Bush is just a man. He has weaknesses, and faults just like the rest of us. He should be accorded the same legal prospectives of all other American people. He is the president, but that still doesnt put him above the law. Right now, he is doing his best Stalone impersionation. "I AM THE LAW!"

[edit on 12/23/04 by Kidfinger]

as posted by Kidfinger
Bush is just a man. He has weaknesses, and faults just like the rest of us. He should be accorded the same legal prospectives of all other American people.

And as such, without further proofs, despite you openly admitting that there is nothing but circumstantial evidences, you, as others, continue to spout a guilty verdict?

Tell you what, the day that you, and others, learn to look at things more fairly, especially on this matter, I'll be less assertive in giving the Office of the Presidency, the President, the benefit of the doubt.




seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]

And this administration devoting effort to ensuring that their misdeeds surface as nothing more than allegation and heresay is what keeps them out of trouble...

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
And this administration devoting effort to ensuring that their misdeeds surface as nothing more than allegation and heresay is what keeps them out of trouble...

Exatly! This is how Bush and co. keep all there supporters. They gradually raise themselves up above all else in life untill they are Godlike in most conservatives eyes. It makes it easier to hid your faults and misdeeds from those that still believe in you. After all, why would such a good, God fearing, model of morality such as Bush ever do any wrong?

No one in this country has more legal right then another. It doesnt matter if your a hobo or the president. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL! Its time for Bush to step down from his high horse and take some of his own medicine.

[edit on 12/23/04 by Kidfinger]

Originally posted by marg6043
Bush himself can come out of in the public and said "I agreed with the torture of citizens" and still people will find an excuse to keep make him a martyr.

Marg, I do not believe in torture. One reason that I come to ATS is to find the truth.

I can hear all the hate rhetoric on both sides any place, but here I supposed that I could get facts.

Now, above you quote President Bush saying he agrees with the torture of citizens. Could you give me a link to that speech?

The "suggestion" from the ACLU that President Bush authorized torture is based on the FBI email which states that President Bush did make an Executive Order approving torture. The email does say that, but.....

Only thing is....no one can find this Executive Order. Everyone seems to believe this email because it makes sense to them that the President would work this way.

Is this all you have?

Originally posted by Seekerof

And as such, without further proofs, despite you openly admitting that there is nothing but circumstantial evidences, you, as others, continue to spout a guilty verdict?

YES If you say you agree that he is just a man, and you agreed earlier that any other man would be convicted with this circumstantial evidence because of its overwhelming direction, then you agree as well. Yep, it would seem to me your a little confused as to either where you truly stand, or your confused about some of your basic beliefs. Figure out which is which and then let me know. By your own logic, Bush is guilty of authorizing torture by way of the missing EO that is probably marked as a National Security concern, but has been mentioned brazenly in official FBI E-mail. I knew I would get you to come around

Then you must have also been a juror on the Scott Peterson case, huh?




seekerof

Originally posted by Mahree
Only thing is....no one can find this Executive Order. Everyone seems to believe this email because it makes sense to them that the President would work this way.

Is this all you have?

You mean to say the people who wrote the 50 page memo on how to circumvent the Geneva convention and torture people than lay the blame at the feet of the soldiers wouldn't really do it? They spent the time doing the research on how to do it, it happened, now accidently an e-mail was released saying that there is a EO making it legal for it to happen. Please! motive, planning, opportunity, and most of all it is still happening. Yes this is "all we have." but what more do you want? With all the real facts and the real evidence and the circumstantial evidence this is sounding straight out if macavelly and the sun tzu. Bush thinks he's a prince LOL. When you say it makes sense to a lot of people that the president would do something like this do you stop and think what kind of president do we have that would do things to make people think he was capable of this? That in its self is a good question you should be thinking about. The high level people have jumped ship and it's looking like it's gonna sink.

Originally posted by Seekerof
=Despite your, and others, apparent hatred of the President, we are talking the Office of the Presidency here. When you bring and level serious charges and allegations against said Office, you'd better be bringing more than heresay, allegations, and circumstantial evidences.


seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]

A common misconception that has become the institution that allows an administration to get away with murder. The president is not above the people, he is for the people, a public servant, elected to serve the public. The government is not above the law, the people are the nation, not it's leaders. The United States has slipped into the folly of human corruption as have all other nations at atleast one point in their history.

When people started placing the president as a monarch, then this country started slowly becoming what it was against, just under the facade of democracy...

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

Originally posted by Seekerof
Then you must have also been a juror on the Scott Peterson case, huh?

seekerof

Hes gonna fry aint he!? (In my thickest Hick accent)

[edit on 12/23/04 by Kidfinger]

as posted by JOHNSmith
50 page memo on how to circumvent the Geneva convention and torture people ....

You keep bringing this up, care to provide a link to it suggesting such or was it merely saying that controversial uses (torture) may be legitimate or justified?
Justice Dept. Memo Says Torture 'May Be Justified'

Justice Department named. CIA named.

Pentagon Memo Legitimizing Torture

Pentagon named. Rumsfield heads Pentagon.

How High Does the Abu Ghraib Scandal Go?

While it is unknown whether Bush himself ever saw or approved the report, it was classified "secret" by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld...

50 pages....? Seems its more like 56?

Here's a good review and commentary on this "Torture Memo/the Bybee Memo":
OLC's Aug. 1, 2002 Torture Memo ("the Bybee Memo")

Again, grey area meaning of the word "torture".
Nothing again points to the Preident authorizing said uses.
Everything points to Rumsfield, the Pentagon.
"A/An executive order" is claimed by the ACLU and denied by the White House.
Even Human Rights Activist and organization heads agree that the ACLU's FBI E-Mail and subsequent documents mentioning "a/an executive order" do NOT prove that there is or was a/an actual executive order given by the President.
Circumstantial evidences and allegations, when applied to this Office, will not hold up in a court of law.
The buck will not reach the White House, despite efforts to see that it does.
Still failing to see that the President directly authorized such.
Blah....



seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]