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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
I think the term "torture" has aquired one of those kneejerk hysterical responces in some anti war people.

From what I read it was mostly sleep deprivation, food and clothing deprivation, and other "mild" things.

This hardly amounts to torture as seen under Saddam, and others.

Hysterical overreactions fueled by political ambitions and agendas.

I don't think the abuses at Abu Grahib were signed off by Bush.


This is the exact same post from the other thread. I expected more from a supermod




posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Responded to my last post Kidfinger?
Found that particular directive or executive order that shows that Bush authorized the use of controversial methods?




seekerof



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
And here is a memorandum for Alberto Gonzales in response to his request to see how far one can go in the torturing of an individual before being held legally responsible. This memo is dated before the Guantanamo scandal. Gonzales has been Bush's legal lap dog since his governorship of Texas and is the guy that put the poli-spin on the speech quoted in the article of Seekerof's first post. He is also the guy, since being bought....errr...brought
to the Whitehouse, that "has worked doggedly to keep secret the details of energy task force meetings held by Vice President Cheney". [New York Daily News, 2/2/02]. Let's call a spade a spade, Seekerof. I do, however, appreciate the civil discourse you bring to the debate.



edit: speller checkar

[edit on 21-12-2004 by antipigopolist]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by Netchicken
I don't think the abuses at Abu Grahib were signed off by Bush.


This is the exact same post from the other thread. I expected more from a supermod

No its not that last line was added.

(wanna bigquote warn for quoting my entire post?)

[edit on 21-12-2004 by Netchicken]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
That report clearly states that interrogation techniques, such as the ones mentioned, were authorized by the president, does it not?

Deep



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
I think the term "torture" has aquired one of those kneejerk hysterical responces in some anti war people.

From what I read it was mostly sleep deprivation, food and clothing deprivation, and other "mild" things.

.


The torture in the Iraqi prison was beyond just silly games for your information, been anti war does not has to do with being kneejerk hysterical, these are facts not fiction.

You know very well that the abuses and specifics were all over the news so I wonder of what place you are talking about, because it can not be Iraq, Iraqi abuse are real and documented.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Responded to my last post Kidfinger?
Found that particular directive or executive order that shows that Bush authorized the use of controversial methods?




seekerof


Are you not reading the replys? see Post Number: 1041394



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
antipigopolist,
Oh....its a "memo" that alledges thus?
Well, apparently the ACLU is just calling Bush into question on this matter:


The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists.

The Infamous FBI E-Mail

The problem I have here is that if said "executive order," passed and authorized by Bush, was 'real' then it would have been listed here?
Executive Orders Issued by President Bush

Not seeing it, even after spending 30 minutes looking for it.




seekerof

[edit on 21-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken

(wanna bigquote warn for quoting my entire post?)



Now there is the real torture!
Sure, you can take the token 20 if you want, but I really thought your entire quote was relavant to my reply



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
My god, Seekerof, just how long are you willing to be an appologist for this administration? It's getting ridiculous...



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   
For those interested the ACTUAL EXECUTIVE MEMO SIGNED BY BUSH IS ON Jeffrense.com

About the 5th story down for today. Its pdf and i cant post it.


Laughable source? maybe, but its the real thing.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Quite correct...without proof, there can be no hard truth. Merely, circumstantial evidence...but said evidence has put to death many a people from the Presidents home state, may I remind you.

Read the memo...it is very insightful.

edit: correcting my error in interpretation.

[edit on 21-12-2004 by antipigopolist]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Seekerof,

Use a bit more common sense. Do you truely beleive that the White-House would release executive orders that sanction the use of torture? Did they really release information as to thier vetoes against human right violations? Or, what about the time when Kissenger ebetted Indonesia in killing over 200,000 East Timorians? They may be ignorant, but not this ignorant. To do so, would be erects ones own grave.

Many of you still miss the fundamental point that this prison was erect for a very good reason...

www.guardian.co.uk...

The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.

en.wikipedia.org...

The U.S. government has classified the detainees in Camp X-Ray as "illegal combatants," rather than prisoners of war (POWs), which means that they do not have to be conferred the rights granted to POWs under the Geneva convention (at least under that convention). The US government justifies this designation by claiming that they do not have the status of either regular soldiers nor that of guerrillas, and they are not part of a regular army or militia. In July of 2003, about 680 alleged Taliban members and suspected Al-Qaeda terrorists from 42 different countries were housed there. None have been allowed to meet with attorneys.

The human rights organization Human Rights Watch has criticized the Bush administration over this designation in its 2003 world report, stating: "Washington has ignored human rights standards in its own treatment of terrorist suspects. It has refused to apply the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war from Afghanistan, and has misused the designation of 'enemy combatant' to apply to criminal suspects on U.S. soil."


These people care not for human rights.

Deep

[edit on 21-12-2004 by ZeroDeep]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Marg, what Bush may have authorised and what may have happened in iraq, are not necessarily the same things. I doubt he signed off documentation that included stacking prisoners naked on top of each other.

However in the lght of the abu grahib events the term "torture" is meant to assume the same. Mind you even called being stacked in a human pyramid "torture" is hysterical. Abuse yes, torture no. So Bush may have signed off on some documents that lead to abuse but kneejerk antiwar people are translating that to torture...


Originally posted by marg6043

The torture in the Iraqi prison was beyond just silly games for your information, been anti war does not has to do with being kneejerk hysterical, these are facts not fiction.

You know very well that the abuses and specifics were all over the news so I wonder of what place you are talking about, because it can not be Iraq, Iraqi abuse are real and documented.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Oh well.....
Btw Thorfinn, besides an allegation and a "memo", you seen or found that Presidential executive order or directive that Bush authorized the use of controversial methods to be used? Pathetic when people dribble and don't use a spoon or napkin to clean up their spills, no?
If you and others are going to come out and subscribe to the factoid that Bush authorized the use of controversial methods, then at least back it by something more concrete than an allegation made by the ACLU using a supposed FBI E-Mail, that claims that Bush authorized the use of said controversial methods based on "a presidential executive order", k?





seekerof



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Oh well.....
Btw Thorfinn, besides an allegation and a "memo", you seen or found that Presidential executive order or directive that Bush authorized the use of controversial methods to be used? Pathetic when people dribble and don't use a spoon or napkin to clean up their spills, no?
If you and others are going to come out and subscribe to the factoid that Bush authorized the use of controversial methods, then at least back it by something more concrete than an allegation made by the ACLU using a supposed FBI E-Mail, that claims that Bush authorized the use of said controversial methods based on "a presidential executive order", k?



Oh please, Seekerof. If you are not at least suspicious of the guilt of the administration by now, then nothing will convince you. How about pointing out some good things about your beloved administration? You can't.

There is such a thing as overwhelming circumstancial evidence, and that point was reached long ago on the guilt of this administration. By saying you need absolute proof of it, is just you and the other Bush zombies in denial. What more do you need, considering all that has been done, considering their behavior and actions?

You are an apologist, and will say or do anything to justify the actions of this administration...



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:45 PM
link   
"The U.S. is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the U.S. and the community of law abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating and prosecuting all acts of torture." - G.W. Bush, June 26, 2003






posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Not seeing it, even after spending 30 minutes looking for it.




seekerof



Well, I found this little bit after 5 minutes of searching. Its not the smoking gun, but it alluds to collection methods.

(d) Subsection 1.5(m) is amended to read:

"(m)(1) Establish policies, procedures, and mechanisms that translate intelligence objectives and priorities approved by the President into specific guidance for the Intelligence Community.

"(2) In accordance with objectives and priorities approved by the President, establish collection requirements for the Intelligence Community, determine collection priorities, manage collection tasking, and resolve conflicts in the tasking of national collection assets (except when otherwise directed by the President or when the Secretary of Defense exercises collection tasking authority under plans and arrangements approved by the Secretary of Defense and the Director) of the Intelligence Community."


It is easy to find ammendments regarding information collection tasking, and how it is ran. Finding out wether or not Bush authorized the type of collection method we are debating is another story. It was hard enough for investigators to dig up the papers on Bush's AWOL, but they did. It will be difficult to find the actual authorization from Bush. Do you think it would really be made that readily avalible? I would say Bush is covering his a$$ so he doesnt get caught.
www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Still dribbling Thorfinn?
You see, you and others can claim that executive orders can be hidden, etc., but in truth, for an executive order to be considered 'valid', it must registered with the Office of the Federal Register. They are in sequencial order.
Again, a list, listed by Subject, indicates no such executive order implemented by President Bush suggesting that he authorized the use of controversial methods. I mean geez, that is what this topic is all about isn't it? TOP STORY: ACLU : Bush Authorized Torture.

This is not a matter of justifying Bush, this is a matter of whether he authorized such uses.




seekerof

[edit on 21-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   
No, Seekerof. This is a matter of you unwilling to admit the obvious. How about some evidence of the good will of your president instead of constantly repeating the, "There is no proof," mantra for the next 4 years?...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join