ABUSE CRISIS: ACLU : Bush Authorized Torture

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

What, no big post to prove that every word Ive said is wrong? Have you run out of links to post to misdirect the path to the truth? My goodness, the trees are getting thicker arnt they. No beating around the "Bush" here. Im just calling it how it really is, and it hits a nerve with conservatives. Actually, most of the Bush supporters here have stayed away from this thread like its infected with leprocy. I wonder why? Could it be that this is a matter that most conservatives hope will be swept under the carpet like the hunt for Osama? Where is the rest of the conservative crew to show us dog like Liberals the light?

[edit on 12/23/04 by Kidfinger]

The "truth" is a two-edged sword, Kidfinger, and you have been cut by it. It is you who is failing to recognize the hypocrisy of your stance.




seekerof

So this is what it comes down to?
"You're wrong!"
"No! You're Wrong!"
"No, You're wrong!"

Have you just exhausted all your sources? It sounds like you have nothing left to make a stand with. Are you ready for my extra flash light yet?

Well obviously Rumsfeld knew about the none restrictions of methods used for taliban and Al-qaida members detained in 2003.

We are suppoused to disregard that if our secretary of defence knows about this none restrictions methods our president did not?

Because he does not remember if he saw the memos or not, memos by Rumsfeld itself.

Al these is called selected memory.

And by the way, I have not doubt in my mine that, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcorft and Bush were all aware of the abuses.

And I guess I am in the wrong also.

Originally posted by marg6043
Lets take a walk on memory lane people.

Lets walk a little further Marg.

In the Feb. 7th, 2002 memorandum, President Bush stated that based on the Justice Department conclusion that the Geneva Conventions treatment of prisoners of war do not apply to al Qaeda terrorists captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere, he stated at this time that "As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."

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

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.

Marg by your own quotes you show the President denying any authorization of torture.

Yes, there were abuses in Iraq. And they are being addressed and the circumstances corrected. You still have not shown me where President Bush has authorized torture.

You just continue to post comments such as the following.

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.

I don't get it. :shk:

as posted by Marg
And by the way, I have not doubt in my mine that, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcorft and Bush were all aware of the abuses.

Your most assuredly correct, Marg. But as par, being "aware" does not indicate, imply, or prove that the President authorized such uses of "torture," does it? Another allegation?




seekerof

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Mahree

Marg by your own quotes you show the President denying any authorization of torture.

You are incorrect. Bush said he is acting within the Law. He did NOT say he was not authorizing torture. A VERY vague answer from the president when a yes or no would have been best.

Originally posted by Seekerof


Your most assuredly correct, Marg. But as par, being "aware" does not indicate, imply, or prove that the President authorized such uses of "torture," does it? Another allegation?

He is Commander in Chief is he not? He holds ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the US military. If he was "aware", then he condoned it. That is the same as presidential authorization if he knew about it but did NOTHING to stop it. If you are an accomplice to murder, you are still charged with that murder. Agian, lets all say it in our best Stalone impersonation...." I AM THE LAW!!!


I still have that flashlight if you need it

[edit on 12/23/04 by Kidfinger]

as posted by Kidfinger
If he was "aware", then he condoned it.

Based on what? Your word? Others? Who or what says that he condoned it? Your talking out your arse, cause your logic is flawed, just as your "proofs and evidences" that directly implicate that the President authorized such uses. Period.




seekerof

First of all I have been as fair to the report as I can, with my opinion on the side on that I reserved the right to be more colorfull.

If president bush have his most trusted people doing illegal actions behind his back he sure have a big problem with his presidency.

Obviously the memos existed they has been around since 2003, and we are to believe that Bush is innocent.

Who is in charge of our government then? Everybody else but Bush?

After the war in Afghanistan, successive government legal memoranda found that neither al-Qaeda members nor Taliban soldiers qualified for treatment under the Third Geneva Convention. The discussion began with the Yoo-Delahunty memorandum of January 9, 2002.

Shortly after that memorandum of January 9, 2002, President Bush made a finding that the Geneva Conventions did not cover the prisoners held at Guant�namo. All of them, he found, were "unlawful combatants," a term not found in the Geneva Conventions. Secretary of State Colin Powell asked the President to reconsider the decision.

I mean people the problem with defining what is allowed or not with torture of prisoners started way before the Iraqi jail scandal.

I guess everything was ok until the abused got out of hand in the country that US was to protect and liberated from Sadam abuses.

Now, I see as why Powell and Ashcroft bail out of Bush administration, I guess they saw the ball rolling down the hill, while condi and rumsfeld had to much invested to quit now.

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by Kidfinger
If he was "aware", then he condoned it.

Based on what? Your word?

Based on your words seekerof. It was you I quoted. You are the one who said Marg was right. You are the one that stated that if Rummi, Condi, and the rest of the cabal knew about it, then Bush was likely "aware" of the events taking place. Your words seekerof. Your words.........

Seems the flaws are not in my logic, but rather in your memory, or the conflict of your idology and the truthes it really represents.

You know, Kidfinger, this is the third time you have twisted my words.
Here is what I said in response to Marg:

as posted by Marg
And by the way, I have not doubt in my mine that, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcorft and Bush were all aware of the abuses.


Your most assuredly correct, Marg. But as par, being "aware" does not indicate, imply, or prove that the President authorized such uses of "torture," does it? Another allegation?

My words indeed. Grabbing at straws? Fingers in your eyes? Twisting my words to suit your misguided needs is foolish, especially for one who should know better....or do you?





seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof


Your most assuredly correct, Marg.

Look, I can do it too! Your words seekerof. Your words....
BTW, the only thing I have in my eyes are contacts. My fingers are to busy typing these replys to try and hand you that flashlight.

BTW, when you agreed Marg was right, did you fail to see this?

And by the way, I have not doubt in my mine that, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcorft and Bush were all aware of the abuses

Thats from Marg
Your words seekerof. Your words.......

[edit on 12/23/04 by Kidfinger]

[edit on 12/23/04 by Kidfinger]

You have got major issues, dude.....major.
I would be careful that that flashlight you so claim to have for me, doesn't poke you in the eye.
Your spinning and twisting is proving more than you now. Character is one to start with.

This issue of Bush "authorizing" such controversial uses has been claimed for since Abu Gharib. As of yet, nothing has proven that he did, no matter how many of you wish to keep spinning this, twisting this, and implying such. All attempts have failed, and your continued efforts have failed.




seekerof

Furthermore, please explain, in your best twisted sense, how "aware" is contrieved or equates to "condoned"?
*shakes head*
(this ought to be hilarious explanation).




seekerof

How have I failed? You are the one who has agreed that BUSH was aware of the torture! So are you saying that Bush is above the rest of the citizens of the USA? have you forgotten that he is our employee? I guess in your eyes, Bush should be allowed to get away with what ever he wants. Clinton gets a hummer and the conservatives have a cow and impeach him. Bush gives a go ahead for torture, but when the Liberals have a problem with this, they are told that they have serious issues? Sounds like a case of double standards yet agian from the conservative side.

That flashlight is still avalible to you brother. I dont think you have serious issues, I just think you have been spoonfed exactly what Bush wants you to believe, and you follow him blindly, even when his ethics are more that questionable.

Dont forget, while your mulling this conversation over later tonite, you might have this nagging little feeling in the back of your mind. That would be your conscience attempting to point you in the right (left) direction. But agian, you might need that flashlight I am offering to find your way.

I dont have Liberal Enforcer in my mood for nothing

Originally posted by Seekerof
Furthermore, please explain, in your best twisted sense, how "aware" is contrieved or equates to "condoned"?

Oh, are you serious? So if I see my daughter running in the street and dont do anything about it, but she gets hit, am I guilty? YOUR DAMN RIGHT I AM! Same with Bush. He was aware of the torture, yet he did NOTHING to stop it. If anything, there is STRONG evidence that has been presented here that shows he signed an EO that authorizes torture, and labled it as a sensitive item so it would never be found. He did say he was operating within the law.

Funny enough

Its kind of funny how my views about the president are now being downplayed as "twisted", and now I have "serious problems" after I show you your own words that assert you believe one thing when you claim another. There is a word for that that starts with an H, but I dont want to stoop to calling you names, or belittleing your beliefs.

[edit on 12/24/04 by Kidfinger]

Seekerof,

Personally I think that Bush did not condemned anything when it came with the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo, and later I guess he forgot of the ones in Iraq.

When Mr. Bush agreed on having the Guantanamo bay prisoners been defined as "Unlawful combatants" he actually striped then for the rules of the Geneva convention and he know that they could be "deal with" anyway that seemed OK, to get information from them.

Now it was a problem, not all the prisoners were "terrorist" but all of them were treated the same.

Now noticed that under the "war on terror" and the patriot act the Bush administration can apply the same rules on American citizens and detain them also onces the "unlawful combatant" is used.

Again the Bush administration made a mistake it could not applied the same "unlawful combatants " to the Abu Ghraib because the people detained were not terrorist or combatants under the sames rules as in Afghanistan conflict.

Even Colling Power knew that taking away Geneva convention away from the Guantanamo prisoners will hurt the US in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Saying that Bush did not authorized torture is misleading taking in consideration that the Bush administration knew very well what it was doing when it stripped the Guantanamo prisoners from the Geneva convention protection.




[edit on 24-12-2004 by marg6043]

as posted by Kidfinger
He did say he was operating within the law.

Certainly did, but your spin of it is incorrect in the larger scope of the wording:

Today Bush was asked repeatedly whether he had personally authorized the use of torture for any detainees in his "War on Terror", and his response each time was not a denial at all, but rather a claim that his instructions on conducting interrogations had required that US operatives adhere to US law. Here's what he said after being asked the third time:

Look, I'm going to say it one more time. If I -- maybe -- maybe I can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you. We're a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at those laws, and that might provide comfort for you. And those were the instructions out of -- from me to the government.

Setting aside my distaste of Bush's condescending tone that he has been adopting more and more of late, we have established over the past week that the government, under Bush's purview, has been for months and months establishing a legal case that torture is permissable under US law because the laws and international treaties dealing with torture are either inapplicable or because the word "torture" doesn't mean what everyone thinks it means. (Good analysis here.)

The Tortured Patriot

As to your continued claim of the "executive order" and the "loop-hole" that I found and mentioned, please feel free to provide said evidences that proves that he passed the said controversial, mysterious, elusive "executive order". Please feel free to provide said evidences that he indeed utilized said "loophole". Conclusive proof remains amiss and will remain amiss, despite the twisted nature of your math.





seekerof

[edit on 24-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Look, I'm going to say it one more time. If I -- maybe -- maybe I can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you. We're a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at those laws, and that might provide comfort for you. And those were the instructions out of --

Exactly! The instructions went out to our peopl to adhere to the law. Isnt tah what I said Bush said? Now lets look at the other telling part of YOUR quote.

......we have established over the past week that the government, under Bush's purview, has been for months and months establishing a legal case that torture is permissable under US law

What about that do you not understand? He is making a case for torture to be allowed! There is you condonence.

As to your continued claim of the "executive order" and the "loop-hole" that I found and mentioned, please feel free to provide said evidences that proves that he passed the said controversial, mysterious, elusive "executive order". Please feel free to provide said evidences that he indeed utilized said "loophole". Conclusive proof remains amiss and will remain amiss, despite the twisted nature of your math.

And here it is agian. You dont agree with my views and you feel threatend by them, so you come back with this dribble.

Why cant you accept that you admitted to agreeing that Bush knew about this torture. If he knew about it, it makes him guilty of condoning it because he has done nothing to stop it.

Please, if you dont agree with my views, then dispute them. Dont sit there and act like a child by belittling my opinion.