ABUSE CRISIS: ACLU : Bush Authorized Torture

Surprise, surprise.

I have supported Amnesty for many years.

Unfortunately, the article you cite does not support your position. It points to the growing number of nations signing on to the Convention Against Torture, and the "ill treatment" evident in certain nations within those signatories is not the inhuman treatment specifically labelled as "torture". But what has been allowed under the Executive Orders signed by Bush - where he has specifically excluded his actions in Iraq from view under the conventions that the US has supported - and where he has tried to hide himself from the arm of international justice - well, they are inhuman treatment falling under the dreadful banner of torture.

When you modify "the vast majority of nations" to read "multitudes of nations" it is analogous with your hero Bush's lies about "readily deployable weapons of mass destruction posing an immediate threat to the security of the US" being diluted overnight to "evidence of weapons programs". It doesn't wash. Bush is BS all day long. Do you want to be perceived the same way?

marg, we all know that Bush is a fake, but he may not be the only fake.

He has said to the nations of the world "you are either with us or against us". Well, I for one determine that is not possible to align with a corrupt liar and fake. Anti-Bush, anti-corruption, pro-American growth and prosperity does not make me anti-American. But supporters of a fake president are wittingly or unwittingly anti-American and are supporting the damage being done. Looking forward to 30 years of misery?

[edit on 21-12-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

MaskedAvatar,
Regardless, k, cause I guess you failed to recognize this?


Confessions equates to information.



seekerof

I wonder if we all Americans will be tag by the rest of the world as the a country of hypocrites, went we all know that Americans does not support torture of human beings, we Americans has being known for supporting human rights and for being a nation of compassionate people.

We are good people.

No, you don't get off that lightly. The focus is on Bush and his authority to implement torture - enabled by the Executive Orders he signed that contravene what the US had already entered.

I am afraid that I am beginning to support marg's position that the US will be perceived as a nation of hypocrites if more people in the US support Seekerof's attempts at justification than support marg's stance that the US is a nation that should stand for human rights.

The ordering of the torture of prisoners should never have been done. There are other ways to gain information but torture isn't one of them. Bush is responsible to uphold and follow international laws and treaties such as the Geneva Convention. He would nail other countries who violate or commit war crimes such as this against Americans...wouldn't he? Hummm.....
Well, America, I think that you are about to get a well deserved spanking for keeping him in office. Pandora's box is getting opened up, finally.

I wonder when it all comes out and he is blamed if he will let Rumsfled take the blame? Will be interesting to watch it all unfold.

Sandly, in the meantime, more troops are being killed everyday...today being the worst.

INvading Iraq was a stupid thing to do...Osama wasn't there, for god's sake. WAKE UP AMERICA!

[edit on 12/21/2004 by Cherish]

I think its time for a clear and simple answer from you. Do you, or do you not think Bush should have authorized torture to get information? A simple yes or know could let us know just where you stand. You seem to be avoiding actually supporting this while at the same time, defending it. So which is it?

Seekerof,

This justification of yours that other countries use the same form of 'torture' to contrive information, is a passive cop-out; The issue at hand does not take into light the measure taken by other less 'civilized' countries to extract information regarding terrorism, we speak of a country who is a sociopolitical superpower and lauded constantly, mostly by itself, as the leading diction in human rights, freedom of speech, expression, liberty, and other such superfical virtues. This is the country whose foriegn policy sits to chide other countries who act with such extreme measures, not employe them - themselves. This is an atrophy to those virtues; the cases adressed were inhumane and outright disgusting. This is not the way civilized Americans bringing freedom and liberty to the less fortunate should act, this is the way Hitlers dogs would have acted.

You can try to defend him all you want, but we have FBI agents who have witnessed torture under what they called " executive orders", there were not isolated cases that have been so vehemently deemed in Iraqi prisons.

The prison itself was created for this purpose, it should be burn down. These people have been held without charge for unsubstantiated crimes against thier will. These are innocent people being tortured.

Deep

Allow me to refer you to Post Number: 1041073:

Post Number: 1041136:

Post Number: 1041191:


My defense has been of the first quote above.
As I have also stated MaskedAvatar, defense of said use of controversial methods (torture) is circular. My second quote above stipulates my personal view of the use of such methods. Now, if your wishing me to address whether I support Bush and his authorization of the use of such controversial methods, yes, in some applied cases. In the matters of AbuGarib, etc., no, not in the wide spread uses of such applications, Executive Orders, not withstanding. The argument of justification is circular, IMHO. Though I disagree with such uses, I am of the belief that there are applied cases when it should be utilized. I see this stance as not one that entirely tries to "justify" this current administration. You and others can spin and see it as you wish.




seekerof

That was not asked of me - but I'll deliver one from me any time you want.

Sorry such a reasonable expectation is so rarely delivered upon by the incumbent US "leadership" of criminals and liars, or so many of its supporters.

You still never answered my question Seekerof. Do you, or do you not agree with Bush authorizing the use of torture for the purpose of gaining info? A simple yes I agree, or no I dont agree will suffice. I dont want to be accused of putting spin on your answer.

Do you read Kidfinger. Try my next to last response, maybe?
Good grief.........




seekerof

oops I was trying to entertain this little debate and my daughter at the same time

Edit: I just rechecked the post and it wasnt even directed at you I quoted Seekerof

[edit on 12/21/04 by Kidfinger]

The ACLU claims are a gross manipulation of the email text. If anybody thinks that interrogation of enemy prisoners of war can take place without making them uncomfortable (and that would include sleep deprivation, minimized meals and humiliation), you're living in a fool's world. What the sick little piss-ants at Abu Ghraib did (and they were not interrogators - lest anybody has forgotten) as nothing to do with the phrases in this email that the ACLU has chosen to manipulate to its own agenda.

Please lets don't forget the abuses on Guantanamo Bay Cuba, the authorization of torture includes the prisoners in that place also.

But we all know that the allegation of abuses in Guantanamo has been around for a while also, now we all know that they are real and now that the allegations are not longer unfounded, I find it so sick.

I wonder what the president will say in his defense, that he authorized the torture "in the name of terror" or that he did it "to protect our nation"

You dont state wether you support Bushes approval of torture or not. You say that you support torture in some circumstances. You said you support the current administartion on some things while not on others. I want a specific answer. Do you or do you not agree with Bush approving the use of torture? Agian, a simple yes I agree with his approval, or no I dont agree with his approval. That is all Im asking. Why is this so hard for you? Good Grief.......

And so the right comes out fighting.....Well, if it were JUST sleep depravation, the chinese water torture or driving bamboo shoots up the fingernails perhaps we could live with it.
HOWEVER, Sodomy, electrocution of genitals, eating feces ARE A WHOLE NOTHER BALL OF WAX. Eh???

Or do some of you think these victims are just being bitchslapped by the troops? Thats basically what you're justifying here.

...and lets not forget the dogs sniffing penuses for lunch, as long as we're at it...

[edit on 21-12-2004 by dgtempe]

Valhall,

How is it manipulating, the statements speak for themselves; thier can be bias in the actual article outside of the statments, but the statments, themselves, purport that these tortures were ordered/ebetted by senior officails, and not isolated incidents of disgruntled gaurds.

I still don't see how using 'other countries do it' as a justification? Example: I have raped the mother of a farmer, slit her throat, and thrown her into a well. The farmer continues this fued: He, in turn, rapes my mother, slits her throat, and throws her into a well. When he is asked to plead his case, he simlpy states, "the other guy did to my mother," so that gave me the justification to do it to his mother. That does not sound right, does it?

Deep

There is nothing new in the ACLU data. This is not shocking nor is it "torture". The FBI has, for many years, had very strick rules concerning interrogation because of the evidence requirements of the US courts. This is not an issue of court procedure. This is an issue of WAR and survival. This is not "the OJ trial" kids, it is WAR. We will never know how many (if any) attacks were stopped. These people want to kill each and every one of you. Before "accepting" that something is "torture" based on the perception of an unknown "agent" trained to garther evidence for court cases, get some perspective.

You want specific answers and you got one, Kidfinger.
Do you like it? Apparently not.
Do you want a 'yes' or'no'? Apparently so.
You won't get a singular type 'no' or 'yes' from me.
I have stated my opinion, and in no way does my opinion fully or totally justifies the Bush Administration.




seekerof

NO THEY DON'T! Read the damned article. They do not. They state "sleep deprivation", "hoods on head", "stripped of clothing"...they also state "don't lay a hand on them"...and that if that occurs - it's abuse.

there is a big difference between the phrases of this email and what took place.