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.

 

Democrats want torture show & tell at hearings

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
From Drudge report:

www.drudgereport.com...

The Bush White House counsel will be grilled about his role in formulating the administration's legal policies on coercive techniques in interrogations -- techniques some Democrats believe led to outright torture!

Developing...




posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   
this should not surprise anyone. The Bush administration, much like every other administration before him since the time of Woodrow Wilson, has been involved in such human rights abuses, and it is about time that someone paid. Not some kite that can sacrificed to make it all go away, but someone who actually ordered the torture carried out. The more heads that roll over this, the better in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   
I say send them to the Hague. Of course Bush pulled himself out of the world courts early on in his administration so he wouldn't have to worry about swigning from a tree behind the world court building. There has to be some accountability, they have to answer to some higher law because the system of checks and balances in the american government has suffered a meltdown. I wonder if there some way we as americans can appeal to foriegn countries. As ridiculous as that may sound, let's go with a what if here, what if George Bush did turn out to be a facist, we can't fight them in the streets, so i wonder what legal recourse one might seek internationally when their government goes ape-shat?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Personally, I believe that this will backfire for a number of reasons. This is nothing but regurgitated 'old news', that the press and the Democrats so politicized this before, that the majority of people simply don't want to be reminded or hear about it again, and then they are coming down on the first nominated Latino Attorney General, the very same base that the Democrats are targeting for future votes, namely in 2006 and 2008.
This article may shed some light?
No Torquemada, He




seekerof



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Yeah seekerof, torture is ok as long as it is us doing it.
Your a nationalist dude, to the point where I could actually read your post without seeing your ID and know it's you responding. Hell man, by that logic any crime committed is excusable as long as it happened within the administration you support. Torture is illegal, period. You can go on and on about democrats this and terrorists that all you like, but it's pretty pathetic to defend torture in the name of partisanship. If it went to international courts, Bush and much of his administration would fry for recent events, democrats or not. War of agression, or pre-emption if you like, is illegal as well, and so is lying to congress to appropriate funds. Get real. What do you expect the GOP to lauch an investigation into their own administration? Of course the opposition is leading the effort. Honest question here man, are you so lost in support of the GOP that you are going to sit there and literally defend torture?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   

as posted by twitchy
Honest question here man, are you so lost in support of the GOP that you are going to sit there and literally defend torture?


The answer to your question can be found within this thread.

ABUSE CRISIS: ACLU : Bush Authorized Torture



seekerof



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I am a Bush supporter and provided an adequate link to show that the US, and most probably the Bush administration has authorized controversial methods, but then we get into the grey area of what is actually defined as "torture", don't we?[/url]
seekerof

Ah I see, sodomizing female prisoners, letting dogs chew them up on the floor, posing them naked, and taking humiliating photos, beatings, holding them without trial and incommunicado, that sort of thing isn't torture. Sigh. You could have just said yes twitchy, I'm lost in it and saved me the efforts of reading through your replies.
I'm glad you at least acknowlege who is responsible for the uh... 'treatment' of our detainees. I applaud your concessions, yet am still trying to understand your justifications. If it were your son or daughter in Gharib, I think you would probably redefine your definitions of torture. Folks like you are going to be cheering and waving your flag as they haul folks like me off in rail cars, and frankly that disturbs me somehow.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
i think all this crappy american news agencies spreading false news and lies (well we all know the meaning of the word PROPAGANDA and what it has done for the nazi germany during ww2), will sooner or later seriously split the american people in half, causing another deadly civil war. because i can see on this forum how you people are diffrent in opinions and belifs.

and your "big boss" is sure not helping you all!

well as long as you fell "safe and secure", thats all that matters, who cares about tortures in prisions on the other side of the globe. thats so far away!



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Silly man, tricks are for kids...


If what you quoted from that particular thread is your understanding of what I agree with, then your liberal twisting shall have to just continue, huh?


The best given and direct answer to your question can be found here:


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.

Post Number: 1041256, ACLU : Bush Authorized Torture


Seems that my last response in that particular post, as emphasized and underlined, was indeed prophetic, being that you, as with a few others, have and are presently still trying to twist my words to suit your own interpretations and understandings. Sad, "and frankly that disturbs me somehow"....




seekerof

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
and still i wonder why dont international laws apply to the u.s., for example like geneva convention about human rights, that was so cruely broken with the prisioners in guantanamo bay, cuba and prision in baghdad.
looks like some rules dont work for everybody on this planet.
why is u.s. so special? i dont get it.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
No need to twist it any further seekerof, it's pretty twisted stuff of it's own accord. Torture is ok as long is is deemed a nescesity to you. Holding folks without trial and incommunicado is perfectly acceptable as long as it is a dangerous 'terrorist' as deemed by whomever you are siding with in a given conflict. Sigh. No, no need to twist anything my man, your twisted enough as it is.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
These "techniques" used on prisoners are nothing new. By any country. What goes on behind closed doors by almost every country in the world involves a complete disregard of any "paper" accords. You all know this, I don't see why I have to even say it.

In the US itself such things have happened too, and such things have been happening for a hell of a lot longer than Bush has been in office. But this will be yet another card played by Democrats for a political gain (to derail the confirmation of Bush AG nomination).

Make no mistake about it ladies and gents, the Congressional democrats don't give a damn about such "prisoners" any more than the republicans do. If it were up to them they'd each probably own one. The objective here is political, not human rights. Can't anyone else see that?



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Jesus man, this isn't a partisan issue, it is a humanitarian issue. Small minded sick twisted garbage it is justifying torture, I don't care how long its been going on or who has done it. It isn't about politics you absolute monster, it's about human beings being tortured and killed. Just because it isn't a new tatic makes it ok? Man you guys really are that far gone. Good lord, instead of saying hey, torture isn't right, your saying its ok because it has been done for eons, and political parties are just using it to slander with? My god, what in the hell is wrong with people? It's torture. Modern civilization is no better than the christian tossing romans and their sports, and it is people like you, mentalities like that which perpetuate this practice. Were you a bully in school in something? Do you actually think all the men and women, and yes children in Gharib or Cuba are terrorists that deserve to be tortured or held without trial? Do you actually believe that because you are an american, it's makes it ok for american policy to mandate torture? If your son or daughter was being held in a foriegn country without trial or even the hope of legal council, then you find out they were being sodomized and attacked by dogs, would you then put your little flag down and stand up for these folks?
You disgust me.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Twitchy, Calm down and take a deep breath. Everyone is entitled to their views, no matter how warped, sick or political, especially so on this board.

In this case, it was done for sport. The pictures taken as souveniers proves this. It was not a serious business of extracting information to save lives. It was FUN sport! Exrtemely sickening.

But then again, I am not sure that if anyone of my family were at high and immediate risk of hram and I felt that I would be able to get information from a person who was part of that group trying to do my family immediate harm, I would treat him or even her with any level of respect whatsoever. I am quite sure that I would go all out and get whatever information I can as quickly as I can to try and save my family.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that everyone reacts diferently to different situations and everyone is quite entitled to their own opinions, without being bashed.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Reading the replies here im sure that had half these people been in Nazi germany then there would be justification of the holocaust

'it depends on how you define genocide!'

Abu Garib was torture, torture carried out by those supposedly fighting for freedom, torture carried out in the same jail Hussein had used! And yet people justify it.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Awwww,

I'm disgusting because I don't appreciate politicians using human beings as political ammo.

You're psychotic. Take a pill.

I didn't say anything that went on was excusable or correct. Nothing like that was EVER written by me. Some simple literary skills will help cure you of that illusion.

What I said was it is naive to think that these members of Congress actually give a damn about "victims" rather than just using them to support a political attack.

I really wish people would learn how to comprehend the posts of other members before launching into virulent attacks on them. What an embarassment to your reputation. You had no idea what I was talking about and you attacked me. If my view on these "moral" politicians offends you, fine. You're entitled to have faith in your corrupt Congressmen just the same way I can see through their motions. But if my dislike for those Congressmen makes me all the fun things you said in your post... well I think you should lay off the hallucinogenics, calm the hell down and think before you open that sewer trap you call a mouth again.

I don't appreciate getting slammed for attacking politicians which everyone else here does too. Twitchy, if you misread my post I will accept your apology for your unjustified attack now that you understand what I actually said. If you still insist that I'm an asshole for not believing politicians at face value, let me know so I can remember not to pay attention to drivel like that in the future. It's all about efficiency and I'd love not to waste time listening to people trash me by inventing things I say and feel.


you absolute monster...Good lord, instead of saying hey, torture isn't right, your saying its ok because it has been done for eons... Were you a bully in school in something?...Do you actually believe that because you are an american, it's makes it ok for american policy to mandate torture...


You are sickeningly misled. I never said anything remotely similar to what you're spewing. I did mention that it goes on in many countries and has gone on for ages. That's true. Where was the part that I said it was right? You invented it! Where did I mention it being ok for American Policy to mandate torture? Oh! You invented it!

Read read read. It's so much better for you than being hostile.

[edit on 1-6-2005 by Djarums]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by twitchy
Honest question here man, are you so lost in support of the GOP that you are going to sit there and literally defend torture?


The answer to your question can be found within this thread.

ABUSE CRISIS: ACLU : Bush Authorized Torture



seekerof




Ok. Then by your logic, lets take all the members of this administration and use the same "Interrogation methods" on them to find out what REALLY happened on 9/11, and the REAL reason we are in Iraq.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
WAR CRIMES
A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal

Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs.

These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.



(Photo Credit: 1991 Kenneth Jarecke / Contact Press Images)
Open Your Mind...


A child in Baghdad after a USA pression bomings
It has never happened in history that a nation that has won a war has been held accountable for atrocities committed in preparing for and waging that war. We intend to make this one different. What took place was the use of technological material to destroy a defenseless country. "From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed... We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice." Ramsey Clark

You couldn't have a more grave breach of the Geneva Conventions than that !!
There's a War Crimes Act in the United States passed by a Republican Congress in 1996, which says that grave breaches of the Geneva Convention are subject to the death penalty. And that doesn't mean the soldier that committed them, that means the commanders. They weren't thinking about the United States of course.

Real Terror
Now this here is Horror,the Terror is the fear these people have to face on a daily basis like,Hunger,Cold, Insult,Cruelty, and Heartbreak,Oh Yeh Panic & Anxiety!!



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
First of all US got his revenge of 9/11 with the attacks in Afghanistan.

Then for some reason the administration has an obsession on showing its force invading Iraq.

Now our administration finds justify to hold anybody that does not agree with the administrations policies in their own homeland and bring them to concentration camps and torture them.

Well I guess we will be building many of this camps around taking in consideration that entire middle east countries will be exile to this camps because they don't like US.

And as long as the administration keeps them in without laws this people are not even considered human. Right?

I will like to see hearings with pictures and tapes of what it has been done with this people.

Yes Horus_Re I saw the documentary on the Highway of Death, they did that to that people in their own land and in their own country.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Horus_Re:

Just so you don't appear totally one-sided, you forgot to also post the pictures of the beheaded Americans and others, plus the burned Americans hanging from the bridge in Iraq. And how about some victim photos from 9/11?

Marg6043:

Are you still here - living in the country you love to hate so much? Did you notice that the road you came here on wasn't a one way street?

[edit on 1/6/2005 by centurion1211]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join