ABUSE CRISIS: ACLU : Bush Authorized Torture

Seekerof, you took that philosophy class on ethical and moral relativism a little too seriously. I am sorry to pop your bubble, but it's idealism. It doesn't work in the real world.

When you will have to partake in the similar acts the victims of these tortures had to, you will forget everything you learnt in that philosophy class

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by J0HNSmith

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?

Is this the "50 page memo that you refer to?" a memorandum for Alberto Gonzales

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.

I don't think the president would tolerate torture. And...I would guess at least half of the people in the US also feel that way.

I am willing to look at facts. Now, is that memo for Alberto Gonzales the one you wanted me to read?

The high level people have jumped ship and it's looking like it's gonna sink.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Many in the US do not believe in the Presidents policies.

Lets take a walk on memory lane people.

CNN obtained a copy of the March 6, 2003, report, which said that in detaining al Qaeda and Taliban members, the United States was not bound by prohibitions against torture in the Geneva Conventions.

When the press asked Bush about that he denied that he authorized torture.

The coment and the question came from a report on 2003 prepared by Rumsfeld. About abused on detainees.

Asked whether he has seen the memos, Bush replied, "I can't remember if I've seen the memo or not." But he reiterated that he had instructed that the treatment of terror suspects stay within U.S. and international laws.

Now if perhaps Bush has short term memory and he only remember that he did not authorized abuses.

When bush was asked if he will allowed torture on prisoners even if the life of many americans were in the line he replaid.

"What I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law," he responded.

This question came in the light of prison abuse in Iraq. And Rumsfeld agree with what the president said.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, under heavy questioning from Democratic senators at a congressional hearing, refused to say what legal advice his department might have given others in the executive branch regarding the possible use of torture against terror suspects. But he insisted Bush did not authorize illegal techniques during interrogations.

Now notice that this was from last year in 2003 and the prison scandal was found to be true in mid year 2004, this article was written in June 11, 2004, since them many things happend from Rumsfeld under fired to Aschroft resigning.

I smell a rat, as you can see these allegations has been around for some time.

The true colors of our lordship in the white house are coming through and we are going to see more coming.

But lo and behold, the eyes of the blind will be open.

Bush is a fake and his god driven government is starting to grow horns in its foreheard.

This is my prophecy for the new year


[edit on 23-12-2004 by marg6043]

To be fair, to Bush, if he did not authorized the abuses then who did?

Rumsfeld? perhaps with Aschroft guidances?

One thing for sure those memos are real.

Originally posted by Mahree

Originally posted by J0HNSmith

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?

Is this the "50 page memo that you refer to?" a memorandum for Alberto Gonzales

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.

I don't think the president would tolerate torture. And...I would guess at least half of the people in the US also feel that way.

I am willing to look at facts. Now, is that memo for Alberto Gonzales the one you wanted me to read?

The high level people have jumped ship and it's looking like it's gonna sink.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Many in the US do not believe in the Presidents policies.

Here's the memo: www.msnbc.msn.com...

No I don't think Bush or anyone else would tolerate torture, that's why he had to have the DOD CIA and the white house legal team help redefine the meaning of torture so he could call it something else. Take a nice long read of that, the beginning of what is happening today.

As far as believing the presidents polices read this, this is what the pentagon says about his polices, here's a little excerpt from here and a link.

It says if the US wants Muslims to move towards its understanding of tolerance, it must reassure them this does not mean submitting to "the American way".

The report urges Washington to change its approach urgently.

In the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering
The Defense Science Board's report.

However, it says that improving public relations is not enough.

"Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies," the report says.

"The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

"Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy," the report says.

It adds that the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has actually raised the stature of radical enemies of America.

Here's the report the DOD put out indicating that the US is actually in more danger than ever because of Bushes polices. If you want to talk about kitchens and heat it will be a little difficult to do at 5000 degrees because Bush's policy got us nuked.

www.acq.osd.mil...

they thought they would be sneaky and release that report the day after thanksgiving and hoped we'd all be having a turkey hangover and would miss it lol!

Most of these abuses represent disciplinary measures associated with prisoners that can be extremely dangerous and uncooperative. It would be self-deceptive to forget why these people are being held in detention in the first place.

Effective interrogation does not usually involve coercion or physical abuse, but cooperation on the part of the subject. In fact, abusing interrogation subjects is a reliable way to get unreliable information from them. Torture a guy enough, and he'll tell you whatever you want to hear, truth be damned.

Older techniques use a reward/punishment model exclusively, but newer methods are far more sophisticated.

Techniques that actually work involve evaluation of the subject by professionals, such as psychologists and psychiatrists, and a structured program of "reprogramming" combined with carefully prescribed drugs and immersion in artificial environments.

Terrorists subjected to these methods by the U.S. often think they are being held in a Muslim country, for example -- with actual agents from those countries aiding our efforts -- and are thus more likely to confide things they would not divulge to overt U.S. interrogators.

Additionally, some subjects are "shopped out" to the intelligence services of allied nations for "special processing", which routinely involves methods the U.S. is barred from using.

Of course, no one protests those countries, because they aren't the U.S. For what it's worth, there are more than a few European nations whose intelligence services use techniques the U.S. won't touch, but of course that won't make the papers, and even if they did, it's not the U.S., so it's basically not an issue.

I think it's great that people are concerned about this topic. It covers a lot of moral, ethical and legal territory that deserves careful consideration.

For those who are quick to denounce the U.S. for its detention and interrogation methods, I recommend thoroughly studying the contents of this website for some context on the issue. Compared to a Turkish prison, Guantanamo is the freaking Grand Hyatt, for crying out loud.

Having said all that, my prediction is that this is only the beginning. As civilian casualties from terrorist attacks start climbing into the tens of thousands -- and not just in the United States, I should point out -- there will be public calls for the execution of family members of suicide terrorists as a deterrent to those for whom their own death is seen as a ticket to paradise.

In light of what's coming, we will someday look back with nostalgia on the "good old days" of Abu Ghraib. Mark my words well.


P.S. I don't have any proof of any of this, and I don't know a damned thing about this topic. I don't support torture, but I also don't support demagoguery and propaganda, either. Make up your own mind, preferably with facts, and remember: Don't believe anything I post.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
It is remarkable that so many here have such empathy for those that would kill them without hesitation. Every minute, of everyday these animals are trying to find ways to murder YOU, yes, YOU. You are not SAFE anywhere.

These poor "souls" are the worst of the worst. I wish there was half as much "empathy" for the victims of Terror.

yes. i have empathy for the victims of abu gharib, and the tired and cranky inmates at gitmo.
and i, personally, am a terror victim of the military/pharmeceutical/media/industrial complex, ...every minute of every day, manufacturing reasons, by any means necessary, to unleash the latest greatest mass human extermination toys for CRAAAAY-ZEEEE PROFIT!!!

oh, wait, no. i'm scared of goatherds. that's it. mean old goatherds. they're scary.

Originally posted by Majic

Additionally, some subjects are "shopped out" to the intelligence services of allied nations for "special processing", which routinely involves methods the U.S. is barred from using.

Of course, no one protests those countries, because they aren't the U.S.

I do believe that I cited this as a part of the circumstantial evidence we discussed earlier. You cant throw that card. It is deplorable that these countries engage in these acts of torture, and its even worse that our president endorses those said countries.

You make an excellent point about terrorism. You usually recieve bad intell from it. Wonder why we had all those false alerts over the last two years?

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Where was the ACLU when 80 children were burned alive in WACO and a small innocent cuban boy was taken at GUNPOINT back to a communist hellhole called CUBA. The ACLU has an agenda - that is to tear down america.

this deserves a 'HUH?'.
aren't you thinking of the justice league, or the fantastic four or something? the ACLU has an agenda to DEFEND LIBERTY. they don't actually DO anything to stop injustice (other than bring electoral and legal clout to idealogical clashes).
granted, that IS becoming an 'unamerican' activity.

Originally posted by Majic
Most of these abuses represent disciplinary measures associated with prisoners that can be extremely dangerous and uncooperative. It would be self-deceptive to forget why these people are being held in detention in the first place.

Yes, let's not forget why these people were being held in detention. Mass round-ups, violators of curfew, looters, and people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There was a story about one of the women at Abu Gharib. Her story made the headlines because there were so few women, so who knows how many stories like this apply to men, but ignored because they were men. Anyway, this woman came from a wealthy family. A translator, working for the US, told her to pay him money, or he would turn her in as a terrorist and get the reward from the US. She refused, thinking that the US wouldn't imprison an innocent woman from a wealthy family, but sure enough, she landed in Abu Gharib as a 'terrorist'. After the torture of prisoners came to light, and the spotlight was shined on her, the US promptly apologized and set her free. She'd still be there if the abuses hadn't come to light.

Why are people locked up by US forces? It's hard to know since they are rarely charged, much less given a trial. And let's not forget those who are not registered, so no one can track them. By the Army's own admission, most of the people rounded up by the US are innocent, it's a force protection measure. So please, let's not forget why the prisoners we torture are there.

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]

why does the phrase 'hate the president' always have to creep in? i don't 'hate' criminals, i just don't want my life, or the lives of good people everywhere to be affected by their evil schemes and deeds. i am a fan(atic) of justice. that's not hateful in any way, shape or form.

why is it NOT the president's responsibility when the military 'acts badly'? should not the president of the mightiest nation in the world, have his ear to the ground, eyes in the back of his head and uncanny ability for good 'gut instinct'?

man, defending bush these days must be like trying to squeeze jello into a diamond, ....like tuna fishing in a duck pond, ....like breathing in space, .......like trying to defend hitler circa 1939. i feel sorry for you, seeker of. they're not paying you enough.

The vast majority on this tread blindly accept the concept that abuse and torture has happened. Why? Because each of you have a personal agenda. That agenda is based on personal guilt for past transgressions. None of you want to face it but it is there. Majic has it right, there was no abuse or torture.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The vast majority on this tread blindly accept the concept that abuse and torture has happened. Why? Because each of you have a personal agenda. That agenda is based on personal guilt for past transgressions. None of you want to face it but it is there. Majic has it right, there was no abuse or torture.

Personal guilt? So all of this evidence of corruption in this administration is actually an agenda-driven daydream. Thanks for clearing that up. With people like yourself in this country, it's no wonder why this country is in the state it's in...

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Why? Because each of you have a personal agenda.

Isnt everyone guided by thier own personal agenda? Conservative and Liberals alike?

That agenda is based on personal guilt for past transgressions. None of you want to face it but it is there.

My feelings towards Bush and his decisions for this country are not affected by personel transgressions that may have happened in the past. My firm stance agianst Bush and his policies comes to fruit through research and the willingness to search for the truth. I refuse to blindly follow any leader. Thats why I only served four years in the Navy instead of retiring from the military. I will question any leaders actions if they seem irresponsible or personelly motivated. I have the highest respect for former President Bill Clinton, however, I questioned quite a few of his actions as well. Granted, the harshest thing I had to criticize was missappropriations of government fund for personel enjoyment. (Federally funded Cigars )

Majic has it right, there was no abuse or torture.

This is where we will have to dissagree completly. I linked to pic's from Guantonimo Bay that clearly showed a soldier engaging a prisoner in a headlock preparing to beat him sinceless. This was captured on film on two different occasions. THe same soldier pummelling two prisoners. Ther is documented evidence of torture. This cannot be denied.

as posted by Kidfinger
Ther is documented evidence of torture. This cannot be denied.

As per the topic of this thread, ACLU: Bush Authorized Torture, Kidfinger, I suppose your going to say next is that the President must have authorized this soldier, you described as happening at Gitmo, to do what he was doing? Maybe Rumsfield? The CIA? The FBI? The DoD? Someone other than himself authorizing such? Or was he acting independently?




seekerof

Kid was referring to DrHoracid's comment that there was no torture. Which is obviously wrong..

Originally posted by Seekerof

I suppose your going to say next is that the President must have authorized this soldier,

Actually, I was countering where it was said that no torture has happened. Granted, some abuse of prisoners may come from disgruntled soldiers who may have lost a buddy or somte other reason to make him hold a grudge. I never said when refering to those pic's that this is the actual event that Bush has authorized. I was only pointing out the fact that there IS documented cases of torture and abuse happenning. Now as for the alligations, well, we have been down that road, and even though by your own logic, Bush is guilty of authorization, you still refuse to see your opinions as they truly are because they conflict with your other ideals. We have shown you the path, but you would rather walk in the woods. Thats fine. When you get lost, and come to the realization that you need help to find your way, Ill be there to lead you out with a lantern in my hand and a spare flashlight for you Us Liberals dont hate you guys like you seem to think we do. We just stand agianst the ideals of a tyranical President who would rather have a dictatorship.

as posted by Kidfinger
Now as for the alligations, well, we have been down that road, and even though by your own logic, Bush is guilty of authorization, you still refuse to see your opinions as they truly are because they conflict with your other ideals. We have shown you the path, but you would rather walk in the woods.

This is the second time today that you have tried to insinuate something that you have seriously misinterpreted me saying. In no uncertain terms have I openly stated that Bush is guilty of authorizing such abuses and uses. I granted openly that there is a possible "loop-hole," for that still mysterious and elusive "executive order," I have openly admitted that Rumsfield (the DoD/Pentagon) may have acted with further authority or independently of a presidential direct authority.

But what I have further shown today is that there are Human Rights Activist(s) and groups who even question the reality of that mysterious and elusive "executive order". That if one did a search, that one would also find that there are multitudes of like comments suggesting the same.

Simply re-stated, there is NO "executive order" authorizing such and defintiely not coming from the only one who can implement and do such "a/an executive order," the President. Who is lost "in the woods" are those who seem to openly believe and state that because there is "circumstantial evidences" that this conclusively proves, beyond any shadow of doubt, that there is indeed such "a/an executive order," despite the proofs and evidences and outside source comments, stating that there isn't. Now, isn't that strange?

The silly arse ACLU best attempts to imply that Bush, directly, is responsible for "authorizing" such controversial uses of torture are:
"sleep deprivation"
"the use of military dogs"
"sensory deprivation"
"stress positions"


As a 4 year Navy "vet", as you have so claimed, and since I also spent 6 years, in an 8 year time period, in ParaRescue, in the Air Force, one would openly admit that such uses of those controversial uses of "torture" can be obtained and endured in BASIC TRAINING? Maybe when going for the SEALS? Maybe when going for RANGERS? Maybe when going for PARARESCUE? Etc.?! If this is the best that the FBI or the ACLU can muster, God forbid if the President did really and factually pass such "a/an executive order" authorizing such use of these specifically described controversial methods.




seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

This is the second time today that you have tried to insinuate something that you have seriously misinterpreted me saying. In no uncertain terms have I openly stated that Bush is guilty of authorizing such abuses and uses. I granted openly that there is a possible "loop-hole," for that still mysterious and elusive "executive order," I have openly admitted that Rumsfield (the DoD/Pentagon) may have acted with further authority or independently of a presidential direct authority.

How fast we forget about agreeing that Bush is just a man, and should be afforded the same legal process as any other man. How fast we forget the agreement that any other man would be prosicuted if this circumstantial evidence was admitted in court. How quickly........

Still cant see the forest through the trees?

As a 4 year Navy "vet", as you have so claimed, and since I spent 6 years, in an 8 year time period, in the ParaRescue in the Air Force, one would openly admit that such uses of controversial uses of "torture" can be obtained and endured in BASIC TRAINING? Maybe when going for the SEALS? Maybe when going for RANGERS? Maybe when going for PARARESCUE? Etc.?! If this is the best that the FBI or the ACLU can muster, God forbid if the President did really and factually pass such "a/an executive order" authorizing such use of these specifically described controversial methods.

Your logic is fading fast oh seekerof. Its not torture if you volunteer for it I joined willingly and participated in all the marchin parties, and pincil pushups, and evrything else that is endured. The difference is, you can quit boot camp. You CANT quit torture

Trees just getting taller arnt they.

And just who here is beating around the "Bush" here, Kidfinger? Your attempt to circumvent and admit the obvious is seriously flawed.




seekerof