ABUSE CRISIS: ACLU : Bush Authorized Torture

Originally posted by marg6043
My husband has a "said so" that sometimes is very irritating, but in these case it make sense.

He always said that "what goes around comes around" and that is exactly what is going on with our Mr. President actions, now is coming back to bite at his butt.

To many people in other parts of the world praying for justice, even if is to another god that is not christian.

Our creator has not boundaries.

First of all, how is it coming back to bite at anyone's butt Marg?.... This is just another attempt by ACLU to attack the current administration....and as i posted previously, ACLU would fight for the human rights of Hitler or even Osama Bin Laden even if they had to raze heaven and Earth to do it.

Anyways....do you actually even believe what you said in your last sentence above Marg? How about.... the 10,000 deaths in Iran by the Earthquake? Was that a response from whatever God, could be Allah, for all the evil that has been done lately in the name of Islam?...... Was that justice by a God for the crimes done by Islam?....

How about the 30,000 people that died in 2003 due to the heatwave in Europe?...... Could it be because they decided to not side with the US and is a punishment sent to them by a God? perhaps Allah himself... Surely a lot of people must have prayed for justice.... Could that have been the anwser they were waiting for?....

BTW, i don't think the Iranian people deserved that Earthquake or any deaths, and despite what most Europeans convictions are about the war on terror, they did not deserve the heatwave they got. I am just trying to make you see how ridiculous your last statement is.... You are trying to say that this attemp by ACLU to attack the president is the anwser to your prayers...and supposedly the anwser of other people in the world...

Originally posted by syntaxer

You mean the same dark side of the Bush administration who are well documented in defending Saudi Arabia who continue to carry out public beheadings and break human rights issues. Gotcha

What some 180 beheadings in Saudi Arabia 2003, compared to 15 or so in Iraq?

Zero Iraqi beheadings if the Bush administration didnt falsify intel and mislead the world into this unjust war. So please, do not attempt to align myself with the bad guys here.

There were approx 30 beheadings of "Innocent" civilians. No trial, no anything. Saudi has been "defended" as you put it, by EVERY president. The Saudi beheadings is based on the Islamic law you seem to want to defend.

Now it seems you too want to put Saddam back in power. I don't have to "align you" you do a pretty good job all by yourself.

Originally posted by Seekerof
My, my....aren't you calling the kettle black or what?

Of course you will only see it from this perspective. Its blatantly apparent that you have failed to mention the liberal "spouting crap" point of view in your rhetorical criticism? Nice. Keep up the good 'liberal' work.

seekerof

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Seekerof]

You can deny it all you want. One thing you cannot deny is is you lack of willingness to admit your truths. Something else you cannot deny, your support of using torture methods. Still beating around the "Bush" are we?

[edit on 12/22/04 by Kidfinger]

Originally posted by DrHoracid

There were approx 30 beheadings of "Innocent" civilians. No trial, no anything. Saudi has been "defended" as you put it, by EVERY president. The Saudi beheadings is based on the Islamic law you seem to want to defend.

Now it seems you too want to put Saddam back in power. I don't have to "align you" you do a pretty good job all by yourself.

The people doing the beheadings should be bought to a court, tried, and if convicted, given the death penalty. Justice should prevail, not grudges and hot headdedness. Im all for putting to death the guilty parties connected with the beheadings. But Justice MUST prevail, or Democracy is a lie in Iraq.

Originally posted by DrHoracid

There were approx 30 beheadings of "Innocent" civilians. No trial, no anything. Saudi has been "defended" as you put it, by EVERY president. The Saudi beheadings is based on the Islamic law you seem to want to defend.

Now it seems you too want to put Saddam back in power. I don't have to "align you" you do a pretty good job all by yourself.

You're right, we live in pretty sad times when Amnesty International has to duke it out with the United Nations. Because of the vast oil reserves and great economic importance of the Kingdom, the UN headed by the US and individual states have conspired to cover up violations of human rights by the Kingdom (well documented), but who cares right?.

By the way, give it a break, i'm not defending islamic extremists who carry out the beheadings of innocents. So please stop attempting to align myself or my comments as a sympathizer to the Islamic extremist cause. I do not support Saddam Hussein or his goal and what he did to the people of Iraq. Most importantly, NOR DO I SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH AND WHAT HE HAS DONE TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ EITHER.

So stop playing this either you're with us or against us crap. Sometimes there's more than just two sides of the fence.

Imagine all the beheadings, torturing, deaths on both sides, innocent lives, limbs, civilian tax money, the works! all that could have been avoided if the Bush administration didnt falsify the intel and mislead the world into this war.

as posted by Kidfinger
Something else you cannot deny, your support of using torture methods. Still beating around the "Bush" are we?

Umm, comprehension must be a one way 'blinder' side-effect, huh?
Refresher:

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 AbuGharib, 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.

Post Number: 1041256

You then say:

Go to the link Masked Avatar provided. I cant quote it because its a PDF file. It states at the bottom of page onw, and the top of page two that an EXECUTIVE ORDER authorized such actions. Now, whats your answer?

Your post: Post Number: 1041394

Again, the infamous "a/an presidential executive order," so claimed by the now infamous ACLU FBI E-Mail has failed to be presented or found. Kidfinger, all presidential executive orders must be registered with the Office of the Federal Register to be enacted. They are enacted in sequencial order, comprede'? You do know what "enacted" means and implies, correct? According to the files of the Office of the Federal Register, here, there is no such "presidentail executive order" listed or remotely resembling what the ACLU FBI E-mail or the "memo" indicates. For "a/an presidential executive order" to be applicable, it must be enacted, thus meaning that it must be declared with the Office of the Federal Register.

As such, please feel free to spin and contrieve this any way you wish. Beating around the "bush" seems to be quite defunct in this applied case, but what is clear and obvious is your own methods to beat around the very same "bush".



seekerof

Muaddib

You will follow the devil itself as long as it has bush face in it, fanatical, that is how I see it fanatical, but if is any consolation is many out there just like you.

You will make a good candidate on Bushes NWO militia, I bet I will be one of the first ones you will hang in the name of lord bush.


Fanatical.

It's quite interesting that Bush followers will call Hitler and his minions what they were (evil Fascists); yet, they fail to see the mirror image of it in this administration and its policies. I believe Jesus (Lord Bush's fave philosopher), referred to that as having a log in one's eye.

well, this does give the bush critics a reason to pull the "war criminal" card

until now, they really didn't have much on bush directly...
Wonder if we should all chip in and buy our president a one way ticket to the Hague?...

It would be kinda funny if Saddam and Bush were tried for war crimes at the same time...
(and the most pathetic disgraceful thing i could imagine)

Originally posted by marg6043
Muaddib

You will follow the devil itself as long as it has bush face in it, fanatical, that is how I see it fanatical, but if is any consolation is many out there just like you.

You will make a good candidate on Bushes NWO militia, I bet I will be one of the first ones you will hang in the name of lord bush.

Fanatical.

No Marg, the fanaticism is in your part for trying to find any excuse to bash and blame the administration. Yes there are things I do not agree with them about, but this latest move by ACLU is showing they will try anything, even exagerating the facts to try to further their own agenda, and you seem to be doing a fine job yourself too.... You want the current administration and Bush out of office no?......

Syntaxer, you can't win an argument with those whose minds are closed. They will never see things from your viewpoint because they are absolutely blind to it. Their position is elegant in its simplicty: the U.S. con Bush, Rummy, CIA, military, Halliburton can do no wrong. The facts are irrelevant. So, enjoy the banter, but don't expect to find any crumbs of agreement falling off their table just yet.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Yes there are things I do not agree with them about, but this latest move by ACLU is showing they will try anything, even exagerating the facts to try to further their own agenda, and you seem to be doing a fine job yourself too.... You want the current administration and Bush out of office no?......

Yes, I am not going to denied that I did not voted for Bush in the last elections, the reason as you can see are obvious, we have tons of evidence of his administration and the bad job he has done.

Perhaps poor intelligence, poor judgment or just plain inability to be a successful president, beat me.

And I will not denied that is a good use of propaganda facts or not facts.

as posted by dubiousone
The facts are irrelevant

Indeed they are, aren't they? When the "facts" are presented in this applied case concerning the dubious "a/an presidential executive order," how strange that so many choose to ignore those 'facts" presented, eh?

Join the club. The more the merrier.




seekerof

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Seekerof,

You either condone torture or you dont. Its that simple. The ill treatment of a human bieng is torture. It doesnt matter what scale it is. Its like the difference of shooting someone in the head or death by poison. One is more humain than the other, but they are both still forms of death. Seekerof, seek the truth. Im not here to call you bad names, or tell you your a bad person. What I have been trying to get at is the fact that you cannot see that it doesnt matter what scale the torture is on, its ALL still torture, and if you condone the easy stuff, you must be willing to under go the ruff stuff as well. So, since the previouse question seems to be something you would rather avoid with a battle of wit, I will rephrase the question. Do you condone torture?

as posted by Kidfinger
Do you condone torture?

From me:

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 AbuGharib, etc., no, not in the wide spread uses of such applications

As to your question:
In general, no.
In some applied cases, applied meaning national and military security issues, yes. Again, I have answered this before, as quoted above. And again, I have stated that the argument of justification is circular and that for me, IMHO, there is no clear cut singular 'yes' or 'no'. I have given my 'yes' and 'no' in relation to the applied scenerio/case(s).



seekerof

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Seekerof]

I thought these techniques were "authorized" all along, in any war, by any government, of course not "officially". And while I do not agree with this war, or any war that can be avoided, and this one could have been avoided more than any I can think of, I think these tactics are likely the only effective ones to extract information from prisoners. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way defending Adolph W Bushler, but nipple twisting is nothing new in war. Playing good cop/bad cop and such is not always effective, a strong willed person can easily resist those tactics, so then it's time to break out the pliers. However, the lines are crossed when they use these tactics on children, I hope the military does not condone that, although it has reportedly occurred which is unacceptable to me. But other than that, even though I lean to the left on many issues, to me this is a "what do you expect, it's a war" situation. May it all end soon.

Those that condone "torture" practice it. Based on this thread it would appear that anyone ever handcuffed or even made to comply with authority is a victim of torture. I fear a neo-con backlash on this subject. The ole "boy that cried wolf" syndrome. Torture is a serious problem worldwide. I think it is being "belittled" here. Seekerof provided good data that is being ignored.

Seekerof don't get confused now, I know the ACLU FBI papers are very bad for bush administration but remember torture in the prison scandal was at the beginning of the Iraqi invasion and at the end most of the detainees were released, that tells you that the abused was not necessary, and that the ones than died, did under torture for nothing.

I will call it poor judgement.

Originally posted by marg6043

Yes, I am not going to denied that I did not voted for Bush in the last elections, the reason as you can see are obvious, we have tons of evidence of his administration and the bad job he has done.

Perhaps poor intelligence, poor judgment or just plain inability to be a successful president, beat me.

And I will not denied that is a good use of propaganda facts or not facts.

The previous administration and president was doing the same as this one..... Clinton, his whole administration, together with most democrats, if not all, were yelling about the WMD in Iraq, and something must be done about it.... The intelligence was gathered even in the 8 years that a democrat was in office including who you would have voted as president, had more or less the same stance, up until a few months after the war started..... Now it is easy for you to want to blame "the current president" even though pretty much the whole world was saying there were wmd in Iraq, they just wanted to do something about it another way.

During Clinton's administration from 560,000 - 1,000,000 Iraqis died because of the "peaceful sanctions" everyone agreed to put on Iraq....

Originally posted by marg6043
Seekerof don't get confused now, I know the ACLU FBI papers are very bad for bush administration but remember torture in the prison scandal was at the beginning of the Iraqi invasion and at the end most of the detainees were released, that tells you that the abused was not necessary, and that the ones than died, did under torture for nothing.

I will call it poor judgement.

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.