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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Well the paper or memo has not being discredit yet by the government so to be fair we can not said that they are not.




posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   
You guys are even eager to defend against a hypothetical and sarcastic remark against Bush.

How can you justify such loyality to an administration that has done nothing for anyone other than the special interests. Unless you are making over a 100,000 a year, there is just no valid reason. I'd like to see some good policy from this administration that doesn't benefit the more privaledged of Americans...



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   


This is considered a blanket statement, for it does not incorporate motivation for the stabbing (ie: was it self-defense or was just for the hell of it).

In the applied case of your comment, "justification" is relative.


You know what he meant, Seekerof.

Justification is moral relatively, not universaly: we have a catergoricaly universal set of laws we all abide by, may it be within a soveriegn, or may it be the soveriegn outside and falling into the laps of international treatise and laws --SOMETHING THE U.S SEEMS TO WAVER.

There has been no valid justification for much of Bush actions: From this spurious war, to the very fact that Gautanamo Bay was created to by-pass international convention, to his proposal to exclude U.S. citizens and soldiers of ever being convicted of human rights violations: To his allocation of tax dollars to Christian research aids text-books, etc etc etc.

Allegations of torture are far and many. My question is, why are other major news agencies not denouncing these so called suspect FBI memos? I don't see any viable reason to believe that it is not. The ACLU being a 'suspect' agency took light and everyone joined the bandwagon.


story.news.yahoo.com.../latimests/20041221/ts_latimes/fbiagentscomplainedofprisonerabuserecordssay

The FBI records, which are among the latest set of documents obtained by the ACLU in its lawsuit against the federal government, also include instances in which bureau officials said they were disgusted by military interrogators who pretended to be FBI agents as a "ruse" to glean intelligence from prisoners.



www.cnn.com...


The ACLU released internal government memos Tuesday that underscore the friction between the FBI and the military over interrogation methods, AP reported. (Full story)

The documents are among 5,000 that the New York-based American Civil Liberties Union received under two Freedom of Information Act requests, the group's executive director, Anthony Romero, told AP.

In one document obtained by the ACLU and seen by AP, an FBI agent recalls Miller wanting to "Gitmo-ize" the Abu Ghraib prison, where photographs surfaced of U.S. troops forcing Iraqi prisoners to strip and pose in sexually humiliating positions. Troops often refer to the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo as "Gitmo."


Deep



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Since Bush himself has acknoledge he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, it can only bring me to one conclussion.

He's either guilty of war crimes in authorizing torture techniques, or he's absolutely the dumbest president in American history in not fully reading memo's, bills, laws before he personally signs them.

He's either a manchurian canidate or democracy's version of Hitler



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Realitive ZeroDeep....
Did the ACLU also obtain from those "5,000" documents the classification and name for that alledged "presidential executive order"?

Thought not.

As such, be sure that among all that "moral relativism" that you so eloquently adhere to, that you keep condemning a man that of yet is to be identified with the authorization of controversial methods and measures to obtain information, k?




seekerof

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rifleman
DELETE MY GOD DAMN ACCOUNT NOW!


Seekerof, can you please help this misguided gentelmen out and delete his account. He seems to have the need to post on every avalible thread that he can get to
Ive encountered two so far.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Exactly we have the right to make sure that our country leaders are doing the right thing for the good of our nation.

So we should not expect the government to do all the decisions without asking us the people of this nation if we want it or not.


Perhaps you don't realize it Marg, but that quote could also be said by a president as this "Ask not what I can do for you, ask me what you can do for your country." Kennedy was telling Americans in this quote what to do, and what was right, which i actually agree with the quote...but it goes against what you were saying, that no president should be telling the people what to do....



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   



Realitive ZeroDeep....
Did the ACLU also obtain from those "5,000" documents the classification and name for that alledged "presidential executive order"?

Thought not.
As such, be sure that among all that "moral relativism" that you so eloquently adhere to, that you keep condemning a man that of yet is to be identified with the authorization of controversial mthods and measures to obtain information, k?



That FBI memo simply stated that an executive order was signed to authorize the use of torture. As for the the " classification and name" of the presidential executive order, is beyond me. The government and the FBI has not denounced these memos, and have only commented on semiotics -- nobody has spoken out against the "executive order." I'm quite sure the White-House would not put this executive order authorizing torture out in the public as much as they would the time they sold arms to Indonesia while they murdered 200,000 East Timore citizen: This would be suicide.

Now, I'm not adhering to moral relativism as I am to universal human rights --maybe you should abide by such logic. There are laws set aside for the treatment and inprisonment of prisoners of wars, however, being that these people are deemed non-combatants and hold no soviergn ties, all international conventions were by-passed.

You still have not commented as to why the prison was created as a legal black hole to by-pass international conventions. These "controversial methods and measures to obtain information" were used on prisoners held without charge and guilt : these are innocent people held against thier own will for suspected allegations of connections to terrorist cells.

Deep



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Does the US constitution apply to the entire world? You keep making statments about "rights" that only exist in the US and a few British colonies. "Held without charges"? Can you spell WAR? Can you understand the concept? Everything on the planet does not revolve around the judiciary.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Everything on the planet does not revolve around the judiciary.


Unfortunatly, you are correct. The world mostly revolves around economics. Or rather, who has the most economic influence. The judiciary system only comes into play when it benifits those who hold the economiic power. Roght now, Bush holds the economic power, so no judiciary system in the world will touch him. Even if he is guilty of war crimes, he is safe because of his position ond ties to the world economy.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   


Does the US constitution apply to the entire world? You keep making statments about "rights" that only exist in the US and a few British colonies. "Held without charges"? Can you spell WAR? Can you understand the concept? Everything on the planet does not revolve around the judiciary.


The U.S. constitution applies to the U.S. government and citizens --oddly, many of the officials have done thier fair share in wavering this. Tell me, was this "war" in Iraq an actual delcared war? Were the last 3 wars "declared" wars?

This is not a war: this was a major police/intell crack-down on terrorism which was blown out of porportion.

The U.S. have signed on to the United Declaration of Human Rights, among many other treatise, and MUST abide by them, PERIOD. You cannot claim moral relativism when it's thrown into your face, and then use the UD-HR as a weapon against other countries.

Rights exist everywhere in the world; Canada, Germany, Poland, Australia, Iceland, Greenland, etc etc etc etc etc etc et etc etc etc etc etc...........

I'm not sure what your point was? Everyone is entitled to rights afforded by thier constitution, of which is written by them, for them :self-determination.

It's sad, becuase many Americans don't understand that some of these rights are slipping away from them...

Deep



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Actually the US constitution was shreaded in 1803 after Marbry v Madison. Look it up and you will see why.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Actually the US constitution was shreaded in 1803 after Marbry v Madison. Look it up and you will see why.



What is the legal significance of the verb "shreaded"?

How much further off topic will the issue of Bush's authorization of torture go?

Has any other "president" in US history signed orders to break international treaties that the US has entered into, and to attempt to shield himself and his delegates from prosecution under international law?

Here's some things to add to the "puzzle":

* By what instrument did Bush specifically exclude the war in Iraq from the established protocols for dealing with POWs and other prisoners?

* By what instrument did Bush specifically attempt to exclude his administration from prosecution under established laws?

These are in the public domain.

When all the ducks are lined up in a row through the great ATS "team effort" in evidence here, will the apologists still line up to defend their hero, the criminal Bush?



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
What's next? Our presient eats babies? There are members of our spy agencies that behave in the manner of the Mafia. Some tatics they use may be brutal, so what. It is the results that count.
What really do you people want? Do you wish to see our nation parish and you along with it. The ACLU in my opinion is nothing more than a gathering of rat bastards. When ever did they support the right of the common U.S. citizen? There ultiminate goal is to turn this nation into a socialistic society.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Perhaps you don't realize it Marg, but that quote could also be said by a president as this "Ask not what I can do for you, ask me what you can do for your country." Kennedy was telling Americans in this quote what to do, and what was right, which i actually agree with the quote...but it goes against what you were saying, that no president should be telling the people what to do....


I guess because I don't agree with dictatorships is why I interpreted the way I did.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by marg6043






..........because they live in an oppressive government, they can't speak outloud like you are doing in here, they can't demonstrate against the government "in any manner" if they do they are sent to jail, they never are able to find a job, and they are harrassed by .
....AND you're perfectly willing to go thru this again....Just think of what you're saying about Castros Cuba, and what you're saying here.

Its Ironic that you should defend the actions here while singing the Cuban Blues....



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   


There ultiminate goal is to turn this nation into a socialistic society.


What exactly is wrong with socialism? Can you provide me a productive discourse as to the negative effects of adhereing a socialist plat-form?

Deep



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
1. Not all presidential orders are made public and not all of them appear in the sequentially numbered Executive Orders series, and not all of those are archived accessibly on the internet in a timely fashion. Good luck to those of you who expect to find the text of Bush's authority to contravene international treaties in the treatment of prisoners, at a handy linked site any time soon.

2. For latecomers this is a very useful summary of arguments:

www.thenation.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   

as posted by MaskedAvatar
Not all presidential orders are made public and not all of them appear in the sequentially numbered Executive Orders series



Really?
Link to the source that indicates this, because apparently, your link does not mention this.
As for my own postulation and proofs to what I have already asserted, for which you just tried to overrule, is:


The Federal Register Act of 1935 effectively required that both executive orders and proclamations to be published in the Register.

--snip--

Regulations governing the preparation, presentation, filing, and publication of executive orders and proclamations are prescribed in E.O. 11030, as amended.

Presidential Directives: Bachground and Overview, page 9, under Executive Orders

*edit* Oh, here is the link to Executive Order 11030


SEC. 3. Routing and certification of originals and copies. (a) If the order or proclamation as signed by the President, the original and two copies thereof shall be forwarded to the Director of the Office of the Federal Register for publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Provided, that prior to such forwarding the Seal of the United States shall be affixed to the originals of proclamations to the extent required by statute or Executive order.

(b) The Office of the Federal Register shall cause to be placed upon the copies of all Executive orders and proclamations forwarded as provided in subsection (a) of this section the following notation, to be signed by the Director or by some person authorized by him to sign such notation: "Certified to be a true copy of the original."





seekerof

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Link to the source that indicates this, because apparently, your link does not mention this.
As for my own postulation and proofs to what I have already asserted, for which you just tried to overrule, is:



Plain English in future, please, soldier.


If you really believe that Dubya would sign into practice a document that specifies the methods of torture to be used by military interrogators, and make that document public via the Executive Orders, then there is proof of life that is dimmer than Dubya.

The Executive Order that pertains to this is the one that excludes the war in Iraq from consideration of the US ratification of treaties.

All inhuman and subhuman techniques that Bush might relish in or otherwise, that he and Rummy have approved through whatever instruments they have signed, will spin off in a wide morasse of dead trees and submicroscopic silicon chips and bureaucratese and secrecy.

In there (somewhere) you will find what you seek about the specific methods that the FBI has called into question as applied to military intelligence. If the FBI has been unable to or has chosen not to cite the documents because the documents have already served to create the practices of military interrogation that the FBI has taken issue with, then I suspect the average ATS member will not be securing those documents. It takes somebody with the intelligence connections and without the overriding tendency to obfuscate and to apologize for the Bush administration's incompetence and corruption, to do that!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join