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: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 77
Originally posted by marg6043
"Seekerof, That is more incriminating.

1.Why? Because the Bush administration changed the law regarding the treatment of detainees when his administration redesign the Geneva convention and stripped them of protection.


2. Marg, the Geneva Convention Accords only deal with soldiers i.e. clearly visible uniforms with insignias, not TERRORIST, there is a difference.

3. Torture as it is applied today is not what one thinks of from medieval literature. Today they live through the experience to spread the warning to others of their kind. Kindness and mercy to these fanatics will only make them bolder. They have got to be fearful of an opponent. This done by use of nearly any means available.


4. How much force would you suggest we use on people that target women and children with hidden explosives?


[edit on 24-12-2004 by 77]


1. The Bush administration can not redesign the Geneva convention, They signed it "as is" and any attempt to change has to be ratified by congress and the international community. They tried to change the definition of torture to fit their desire to hurt people they think might be the enemy.

2. Read it again, it does not only deal with people in uniforms.

3. Have you seen the pictures? Some of that stuff makes midevil torture look fun. You're sick if you can justify doing that stuff to someone else.

4. How much force would you suggest we use against people who murder innocent women and children with big bombs they drop out of the sky? What's the dif?




posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   
The day after this info has become public 19 soldiers died in Iraq by fellow suicide bomber infiltrated in the camp. Are there any connections here?



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Im sorry for your asssault, it surley was innapropriate, but what does this have to do with interrogation of captured enemy combatants?


the point is, that not everyone wants an eye for an eye. my buddy wanted to start hunting these guys down one by one, and duct taping them to telephone poles and whatnot. i said, 'no, that would be wrong'. saying that the enemy 'respects' being tortured is silly. people are people. cultures vary, but deep down in our souls, we are all one. what you have going on in the world now is an assault by rich people. nothing more, nothing less.
any actual middle easterners who are involved in 'terrorism' have been pushed to the extreme limits of poverty and injustice. however, 911, pearl harbour, hiroshima and nagasaki, the reichstag fire, the PLO, the SS/CIA/KGB etc, are ALL creations of the rich and infamous. do i want their heads pushed onto pikes as a warning to other slavemaster wannabes? kinda. but, would i torture them first? if anyone DESERVES it, it is the pirates of the world economy(the jolly roger flew over templar ships, ...skull and bones, ....brotherhood of death, ...your president is a card carrying member of the oldest grift club in the book).
no. i would just kill them, because it is merciful. torture is wrong. i would much rather a quick lead ticket to the afterlife in the head, then have some kentucky fried bigot stick a nightstick up my arse while a dog chews on my nuts.
i wouldn't even have them killed, if it was up to me. i would have them stripped of all rights and priveledges, and put them on a barren piece of land. they could torture themselves, then. much more appropriate.


Originally posted by CazMedia

a person that has been tortured can go on to recover, even if they have lost limbs or have scars, and can continue in life to perhaps win the nobel peace prize, discover the cure for cancer, or just live out his days

a dead person doenst continue to anything.


i think a lot of dead people are disagreeing with you. the body is but a shell for the soul. it is the soul that 'matter's.
i also think, if you study drhoracid's posts, that you never recover. isn't that right, drhoracid? can you not relive the horror over and over again? does it not fill you with hate? (merry anti-christ-mas to you, too. may satan clause fill your stockings to the brim on this fine saturnalia)


Originally posted by CazMedia
How one can get these 2 levels of "harm" mixed up is beyond belief, and says alot about the mentality that thinks interrorgation using the methods the USA has condoned is somehow beyond reproach.


i'm not talking about 'discomfort'(which i don't condone, either. imprisonment or death, depending on PROOF of GUILT. no 'grey areas'. no innocents caught up in the melee.), i'm talking about what we saw at abu gharib. this behaviour is a cancerous blotch on the face of uncle sam. the cancer is spreading. bringing the beheadings into the picture as an excuse for this behaviour is silly, in light of the fact that the first, most famous one, was manufactured by the bush propoganda wing.
most importantly, ...torture DOESN'T WORK(for accurate information extraction, that is). i'll personally say anything at all to insurance companies, for example, to achieve 'matching'. under torture, you could make me say(and BELIEVE) that george bush is the father, the son and the holy ghost.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   
One of the benefits of bringing the detainees to Guantanamo was to able and used any means the US saw necessary to get their information and that included torture. like that it was not international laws to be apply and neither US laws.

All this was deliberated and planned by the administration and Mr. Bush.

But the difference is that again the mistake was made when they used the
Abu Ghraid jail complex to do the same with the Iraqis detainees and another mistake was to do it in Iraqi soil that is why we right now knows about all this.

One thing is to fight a war against terror and another one is to play God against another country and to punish them while we are bringing democracy in their soil after all the Iraqis did not had anything to do with 9/11 so why our administration used punishment against them?

After all the supoused perpetrator runs free and is still a no show.

And people we dare to ask why they hate us now, if I remember very well in the begining of the invasion and the Abu scandals the people in Iraq were actually happy to see the US over there.

Yes I did notice that the attacks were after the information was released

[edit on 24-12-2004 by marg6043]


77

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by J0HNSmith

Originally posted by 77
Originally posted by marg6043
"Seekerof, That is more incriminating.

1.Why? Because the Bush administration changed the law regarding the treatment of detainees when his administration redesign the Geneva convention and stripped them of protection.
2. Marg, the Geneva Convention Accords only deal with soldiers i.e. clearly visible uniforms with insignias, not TERRORIST, there is a difference.
3. Torture as it is applied today is not what one thinks of from medieval literature. Today they live through the experience to spread the warning to others of their kind. Kindness and mercy to these fanatics will only make them bolder. They have got to be fearful of an opponent. This done by use of nearly any means available.
4. How much force would you suggest we use on people that target women and children with hidden explosives?
[edit on 24-12-2004 by 77]


1. The Bush administration can not redesign the Geneva convention, They signed it "as is" and any attempt to change has to be ratified by congress and the international community. They tried to change the definition of torture to fit their desire to hurt people they think might be the enemy.
1A) The Geneva Convention was not redesigned and while the nomenclature is void of "Uniform" the visible insignia and visible weapon is there. These are supposedly terrorist that are in special confinement other than general population at camp x ray. That is to say they are known terrorist.

2. Read it again, it does not only deal with people in uniforms.
2A. See above

3. Have you seen the pictures? Some of that stuff makes midevil torture look fun. You're sick if you can justify doing that stuff to someone else.
3A Please provide the link. I have only read the standard: loud noise, AC on AC off, strobe light, cigarette prodding. No reports of bone marrow scraping using acupuncture needles- that are effective and leave no evidence. I have held the remains of a child that was tortured to death (I do not tolerate that-ever), So please share the photo link.

4. How much force would you suggest we use against people who murder innocent women and children with big bombs they drop out of the sky? What's the dif?
4A. the difference, dear pie lover, the "big bombs" are used in carpet bombing of military forces. When surgical strikes are used with small missiles our military are not aiming specifically for women and children. It is a huge difference between unavoidable casualties of war and specific murder of women and children to bring about photo opts.
I will allow no harm to an innocent within ten feet of my person, at times Ive opened that up to several miles.

Again Mr. Smith please provide the links to those photos, as my position may change on this specific thread. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 05:05 AM
link   
I have long ago "forgiven" those whom tortured me. In our case the only purpose for the torture was the amusement of some 14 year olds with too much power. It would also appear you confuse my enthusiasm with HATE. Do not, I hate only "evil" on this planet. The entire purpose of my Ph.D. in psyc was to better understand mans evil upon man.

The roots of evil are not "poverty or lack of education". Neither is it wealth. Evil is a personal decision.

I also believe we are at war with evil. Islam itself is evil becuase it deny's Christ.

Again Merry Christmas and Peace on Earth.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
I hate only "evil" on this planet.

Evil is a personal decision.

I also believe we are at war with evil. Islam itself is evil becuase it deny's Christ.


i don't know much about islam, but i do know they see christ as one of the great prophets.
is judaism evil because it denies christ?
sorry, but i see all this as a pure class war and social engineering project. religion is just leverage.

sincere happy holidays to you, anyway, dr. may your turkey not be dry.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The roots of evil are not "poverty or lack of education". Neither is it wealth. Evil is a personal decision.


What is evil ? Is OBL evil ? Is GWB evil ?


I also believe we are at war with evil. Islam itself is evil becuase it deny's Christ.


Ouch. islam does not deny christ, it even accepts him as a prophet. It just denies the evangels, which most archaeologists do, since they simply contain what is known as mithraism, adapted to judaism.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
The Washington Post links the orders to Bush and Rumsfeld without a shadow of a doubt.

Gutsy call for American mainstream media...



www.notthistimegeorge.org...

War Crimes
Thursday, December 23, 2004; Page A22


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. Since the publication of photographs of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in the spring the administration's whitewashers -- led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- have contended that the crimes were carried out by a few low-ranking reservists, that they were limited to the night shift during a few chaotic months at Abu Ghraib in 2003, that they were unrelated to the interrogation of prisoners and that no torture occurred at the Guantanamo Bay prison where hundreds of terrorism suspects are held. The new documents establish beyond any doubt that every part of this cover story is false.

Though they represent only part of the record that lies in government files, the documents show that the abuse of prisoners was already occurring at Guantanamo in 2002 and continued in Iraq even after the outcry over the Abu Ghraib photographs. FBI agents reported in internal e-mails and memos about systematic abuses by military interrogators at the base in Cuba, including beatings, chokings, prolonged sleep deprivation and humiliations such as being wrapped in an Israeli flag. "On a couple of occasions I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water," an unidentified FBI agent wrote on Aug. 2, 2004. "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 to 24 hours or more." Two defense intelligence officials reported seeing prisoners severely beaten in Baghdad by members of a special operations unit, Task Force 6-26, in June. When they protested they were threatened and pictures they took were confiscated.

Other documents detail abuses by Marines in Iraq, including mock executions and the torture of detainees by burning and electric shock....



May Bush, Rumsfeld and others invloved with the construction of these orders in the Bush administration rot in hell.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
It seems this thread has degenterated into the conservatives spouting crap agian. You make it sound like we want to give each terrorist or Iraqi insurgent a million dollars and 50 acres of land. You guys are rediculas. Of course we want justice. But we are not willing to sacrifice God given rights just to have justice. In the end, it is not you conservatives who will judge. Dont forget that.

Edit: theLibra, This is not directed towards you. You replied befor I could.


[edit on 12/22/04 by Kidfinger]


And it is Democrats and liberals who will judge?....don't forget that half or so of the people in power are democrats too....


Yeah, let's fight a more sensitive war on terrorism huh?.....



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by krotzkrotz

Ouch. islam does not deny christ, it even accepts him as a prophet. It just denies the evangels, which most archaeologists do, since they simply contain what is known as mithraism, adapted to judaism.



They do not see Jesus as God, they only see him as a prophet that I know of. There is a big difference between Islam and other religions, and if you read what Mohammed did and his explanations of why he did it, you will see why we are in the mess we have right now, "terrorism", and ever since the 7th century AD.

BTW, what do you think would have happened if Jesus Christ was going around attacking caravans, beheading people, even after surrendering and taking the wives from captives, including 6-9 years old girls?.....

What do you think many Christians would be doing if Jesus went around with a sword conquering people, towns, cities, etc and making you decide to either convert to Christianity or face heavy taxation which would be impossible for you to pay, and would leave you without bread for you and your family for days on end?....

To anwser my own question, many Christians would be doing what Islamic extremists are doing now, that is part of the reason why they want Islam to dominate the world, ever since the 7th century.


[edit on 25-12-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- have contended that the crimes were carried out by a few low-ranking reservists, that they were limited to the night shift during a few chaotic months at Abu Ghraib in 2003, that they were unrelated to the interrogation of prisoners and that no torture occurred at the Guantanamo Bay prison where hundreds of terrorism suspects are held. The new documents establish beyond any doubt that every part of this cover story is false.


Very interesting MaskedAvatar, I guess our fall guy is still and will be Rumsfled.

After all he was aware of the abused, he knew about the memos, he straight out lie about the abused.

Does anybody can bet about the time is going to take for Rumsfeld to quite?

Unless he knows more that we may imagine and some can be very incriminating he may have Bush in the palm of his hand and that is why he is still holding his position.

But I wonder for how long more, as all this information becomes available.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
What many of the liberals, democrats and others who will use any excuse to try to bash away at Bush and the present administration don't want to concede and don't realize is that, first of all i am not even sure about the authenticity of that memo, there have been quite a few things going around on the internet who have become clear as events and more information was release that they were fake....

Second, there will always be people in any organization, government, or group that will go over the line and abuse those they have some power over. Find where it says in that memo that rape, and other forms of torture, such as beatings, were condoned...

Let's see some of the things that the UN peacekeepers have done...appart from what the French forces are doing in the Ivory Coast right at this moment....


UN 'ignored' abuse at Kosovo mental homes

Oliver Burkeman in New York
Thursday August 8, 2002
The Guardian

Patients at United Nations mental institutions in Kosovo have been raped and physically attacked under the eyes of UN staff, held in "filthy and degrading" conditions, and threatened with punishment if they report the abuses, according to a damning investigation published in New York yesterday.
In one case, a woman patient was raped after UN employees locked her in a room with a male patient because they wanted to "calm her down", while employees who observed another rape in a hallway said they did not intervene because the victim "must have asked for it", according to the independent campaigning group Mental Disability Rights International (MDRI), which produced the report.


Excerpted from.
www.guardian.co.uk...




U.N. Sexual Abuse Alleged in Congo
Peacekeepers Accused in Draft Report

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 16, 2004; Page A26

UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 15 -- U.N. peacekeepers threatened U.N. investigators investigating allegations of sexual misconduct in Congo and sought to bribe witnesses to change incriminating testimony, a confidential U.N. draft report says.

The 34-page report, which was obtained by The Washington Post, accuses U.N. peacekeepers from Morocco, Pakistan and Nepal of seeking to obstruct U.N. efforts to investigate a sexual abuse scandal that has damaged the United Nations' standing in Congo.


Excerpted from.
www.washingtonpost.com...


Now, i am not saying that the above is a reason to allow any brutal form of torture to be used. What i am saying is that people are people no matter who they work for, or "what they are supposed to do", some people are criminals/beasts and will do many criminal acts "on their own."


[edit on 25-12-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Thank you MA for that enlightening article you linked to.


Other documents detail abuses by Marines in Iraq, including mock executions and the torture of detainees by burning and electric shock. Several dozen detainees have died in U.S. custody.


Not much room for grey area there is there. Can we say vindication on the torture issu? I think we can.


And now lets follow along with this part as Rumsfield is linked quite clearly.


But the documents also confirm that interrogators at Guantanamo believed they were following orders from Mr. Rumsfeld. One FBI agent reported on May 10 about a conversation he had with Guantanamo's commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who defended the use of interrogation techniques the FBI regarded as illegal on the grounds that the military "has their marching orders from the Sec Def."


Is that Rummie they are reffering to?I believe they are


And even though we can be certain that Bush was aware of this situation, we can also be certain that a patsy will draw the blame from him. This last paragraph says it best.

The record of the past few months suggests that the administration will neither hold any senior official accountable nor change the policies that have produced this shameful record. Congress, too, has abdicated its responsibility under its Republican leadership: It has been nearly four months since the last hearing on prisoner abuse. Perhaps intervention by the courts will eventually stem the violations of human rights that appear to be ongoing in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan. For now the appalling truth is that there has been no remedy for the documented torture and killing of foreign prisoners by this American government.


Conservatives are always saying show me the evidence. Then when they are shown, the credibility of the source is doubted because its not mainstream media. Well, here is your mainstream media. Here is your evidence. Yet it will be denied and buried amidst a cry of outrage that this subject has even been brought to light. How dare we question Mr Bush. A man of obvious integrity (sic.) We should know better and since we dont, we are labled as anti American, or peacenik tree huggers.

Now that the mainstream media has caught on to Mr. Bush's obvious manipulation of the law to benifit his personal wishes for the people who oppose him, will we finally see the end of the defence of Bush? I think not. Tyranical Ideology is a hard thing to let go of when believed in so passionately.

www.notthistimegeorge.org...

Just had to put my two cent back in this mess



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
What many of the liberals, democrats and others who will use any excuse to try to bash away at Bush and the present administration don't want to concede and don't realize is that, first of all i am not even sure about the authenticity of that memo, there have been quite a few things going around on the internet who have become clear as events and more information was release that they were fake....

Now, i am not saying that the above is a reason to allow any brutal form of torture to be used. What i am saying is that people are people no matter who they work for, or "what they are supposed to do", some people are criminals/beasts and will do many criminal acts "on their own."


[edit on 25-12-2004 by Muaddib]


this info is more than an internet rumour. FOIA was the best thing that ever happened to lady justice in latter day america. did you not read masked avatar's post?

people act according to the behaviour of others around them. this is the power of the meme, the mightiest of all forces. only the truly strong can stand on personal principals when the principals of peers shift.
i just watched the new 'king arthur' movie. very inspiring stuff(although, historically inaccurate, and all that naysaying stuff). the movie is a great illustration of the forces of darkness(bureaucracy and class systems) vs. the forces of light(freedom and equality), and the power of will.

anybody who thinks the roman empire 'fell' doesn't really see the patterns of the "illuminati".



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   
What bothers me the most in all of this is the practice
of using the far too general term of "National Security"
and redacted text as a ploy to quite literally tamper with criminal evidence.

Apparently, the redacted text in these documents is meant to protect only
the financial security of those involved in the cover-up.

These documents are National Archives and should preserved without alteration
under penalty of law.
In my opinion, even the most highly classified documents should still be preserved
without any alteration for historical reasons.

The deliberate destruction of government property is a felony and the security personnel
reviewing these documents are equally guilty if they knowingly tamper with criminal
evidence.

Try to imagine what our constitution would look like if the names of the authors
had been redacted for security reasons.

This is not the first time that terrible deeds have been done in a time of war,
but this does not in any way excuse these actions.
We can not win the hearts and minds of anyone by setting such a poor example.

The soldiers involved should have known that what they were doing is wrong and
their superiors should be held accountable.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
They do not see Jesus as God, they only see him as a prophet that I know of.


Exactly. But only a minority of christians are idolatring jesus the way you do it. Jesus never claimed to "be God". Ridiculous.


There is a big difference between Islam and other religions, and if you read what Mohammed did and his explanations of why he did it, you will see why we are in the mess we have right now, "terrorism", and ever since the 7th century AD.


Let's say islam encourages armed uprisings against unjust rulers (which i find very positive), how does that equate to 'terrorism' ?


BTW, what do you think would have happened if Jesus Christ was going around attacking caravans, beheading people, even after surrendering and taking the wives from captives, including 6-9 years old girls?.....


Your allegations are almost as credible as asserting that jesus was a gay impostor... (there is actually evidence for that, unlike your baseless claims about muhammad).


What do you think many Christians would be doing if Jesus went around with a sword conquering people, towns, cities, etc and making you decide to either convert to Christianity or face heavy taxation which would be impossible for you to pay, and would leave you without bread for you and your family for days on end?....


Well this is exactly what christians did for two thousand years now, claiming around 300.000.000 victims ... sorry to disappoint you


To anwser my own question, many Christians would be doing what Islamic extremists are doing now, that is part of the reason why they want Islam to dominate the world, ever since the 7th century.


The same can be said about christians and jews. I don't know if that line of thought is very credible, but let's say it is. Then the biggest danger to world peace is christian fundamentalism today, not islamic freedom fighters. Islamic insurgents killed perhaps 10000 people in the last fifty years, in the name of allah. George Bush killed, in the three last years alone, around 200.000 people 'in the name of the Lord'. Who's more dangerous ?



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Funny people:
"Authorized" seriously needs to be changed to the Political Correct "suggests" or "alledges".

Innocent in a court of law till proven guilty, and despite the feeble 'circumstantial evidences' given, it still amounts to an "allegation" that "suggests".


"The FBI agent was mistaken regarding the existence of an executive order on interrogation techniques. No such executive order exists or has ever existed. The Defense Department determines the methods of interrogation of military detainees in the Iraq conflict."

Pentagon Interrogators 'Impersonated' FBI- E-Mails

Also, could someone find said still missing E.O. or "memo" that further indicates that the administration or the President would authorize sexual humiliation and physical beatings to be included with those other "four" inhuman acts that are "tantamount to torture"? Maybe pyramids and then photos being taken?

If such is true and the great amount of "connect the dots" circumstantial evidences atest to the full and factual authorization of said E.O and those controversial uses, then please, someone take this before the Judiciary Branch and let the "impeachment" and trial begin! Please.





seekerof



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Funny people:
"Authorized" seriously needs to be changed to the Political Correct "suggests" or "alledges".

Innocent in a court of law till proven guilty, and despite the feeble 'circumstantial evidences' given, it still amounts to an "allegation" that "suggests".


i thought you supported detaining people without trial? you even condone torture under "certain circumstances".
the whole 'war on terrorism' was started without an INKLING of proof OR evidence. A WAR, for god's sake! thousands of innocents have been senselessly murdered, and some even tortured, on mere ALLEGATION.

"we enjoy what's known as the 'double standard'" -hank hill.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Also, could someone find said still missing E.O. or "memo" that further indicates that the administration or the President would authorize...



You being closer to sources of intelligence, in spite of your tenacious and misdirected defence of a corrupt administration headed by a gang of criminals and your consistent obfuscation of all issues surrounding their crimes and incompetence at covering their asses, are probably better placed to locate what information you seek. Please share it when it is located, rather than covering it up - unless your job depends on cover-ups in some way. That would be a shame.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join