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.

 

Bush's Fight with Congress over Torture Defines Our Character

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
A question I have is the following:

Bush and his administration have quite openly admitted to have gained information trough torture.

To my knowledge, by law, this is still illegal in the US.

Why isn't Bush in prison by now for breaking a rather important part of the law like that?

Why is he allowed to instead try and change those laws while continuing his illegal activities?


If any man or woman in the US were to start say murdering people for some sort of rightious reason (say, the only people they kill are convicted murderers), but they are also strongly advocating the elimination of these convicts and trying to pass laws ot make it legal, won't they still get trown in jail because they are in effect breaking the law and killing people?

Why is it that Bush is allowed to break US law and get away with it? Is he above the law? I thought the US President and every other US Citizen have a duty to uphold and protect the law and US Constitution.




posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
well, evidently, bush and his buddies don't seem to be as sure of themselves as you are....and considering that canadian investigation I linked to above, well, I can see why. they are trying every trick in the book to get them out of the pressure cooker....a pressure cooker that most of us would be willing to accept if we honestly thought that breaking a law would save the lives of those around us....
the are unwilling to accept the consequences because in many cases the situation did't merit the actions they took.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Thematrix, I have to repeat a question I asked earlier--just what constitutes torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? Is psychological intimidation or trickery torture? What has Bush admitted to exactly?

Dawnstar I could not agree more. The same goes for what some of the Bush interrogators have done. If those people, or at least their bosses, didn't think they were in violation of the law then the subject would probably never have come up. I can only repeat what I said earlier, namely outlaw torture across the board and then do it anyway if it absolutely has to be done in some particular case. Recognize though that using torture boils down to a judgement call by the interrogator and that a jury might not agree with that judgement.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Report Criticizes U.S. in Torture Case


TORONTO - The United States "very likely" sent a Canadian software engineer to Syria, where he was tortured, based on the false accusation by Canadian authorities that he was suspected of links to al-Qaida, according to a new government report.


Geez, why do we even need to mess with the definitions if we can get away with this?



[edit on 9/19/2006 by Relentless]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   
You know, when I read people defending this, it makes me want to switch off from this board. If you spend too long around idiots, it gives you a headache or makes you stupid too.


apc

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
If you spend too long around idiots, it gives you a headache or makes you stupid too.


Quite mutual.

You know... if you are my enemy... I do not give two bits about you. I don't care about your feelings. I don't care about your suffering. I only care about your defeat. I only care about your death. If we are at war, my only purpose for fighting that war is your defeat... your death. And to defeat you, to kill you, I will take full advantage of every opportunity and situation that presents itself to provide me with easier access to my desired outcome. I will not bind my hands with morals or ethics. The only thing that will restrain me is the law. And that is the problem here. What is the law? As our current enemy is not one incorporated nation, the only law that applies in this context is Common Article Three.

Common Article Three forbids torture, cruelty, and inhumane treatment of detainees. So, I can't shove bamboo under your fingernails. I can't slice you open down your spine and slowly peel your flesh off. I can't even dangle you by your hair clipping the strands one by one (although that would be pretty fun
). But, I can mess with your head. I can make you think and fully believe that I am going to do horrid things to you if you don't tell me what I want to know. I can get inside your brain and wiggle around until you are so confused that you don't know what's what and start spilling everything.

Is that torture? Is that cruel? Is that inhumane? In my opinion, no.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc

You know... if you are my enemy... I do not give two bits about you.


The problem is who is the enemy if you are in a land that is no yours ivading then are you not the enemy?

If you were invading a nation because false pretenses and get caught by the opposition and beheaded then who is at fault, the opposition alias terrorist, insurgents or you own country for invading a nation that is now theirs and putting you and the citizens of that nation at risk.

Then are you not the enemy?

Sometimes we forget in our obfuscation who are the people or supposed terrorist we are holding on secret camps.

Actually most of them or not all had been taking from their own countries.

So is that supposed to be democratically right?

While we are pushing the ideologies that democracy and freedom is OK and we claim to have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan from evil regimes or leaders guess what we are no better than the people that torture our own when they get caught.

But is a big difference We are in their lands when we get them

Now who is the oppressor and who is the fighter.

Relentless you are right my friend nobody wants to address our civil rights that will also be lost under this bill Bush wants.

Even the supreme court pretty clearly feels that Bush has way overstepped his constitutional boundaries.




[edit on 19-9-2006 by marg6043]


apc

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Uhm... the enemy is the one shooting at me?

Now I don't condone much of what this administration has done. But, this whole argument that if we clarify the article others will use it against us is bogus. Noone treats our soldiers well. Never have. Why difference would there be?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
[edit on 19-9-2006 by SkyWay]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Wartime draws the sadists out of their dark dungeons. Some of them seem to creeped over to this forum. (((Shudder)))



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Uhm... the enemy is the one shooting at me?



Where they are shooting at you? here in your own nation or in the nation that is theirs.

I will not denied that 9/11 was a big slap on the face of our nation . . . but didn't we got our revenge already? have we not killed already more than necessary to avenge every American and none American that die in 9/11?

Who is at fault that we are seeking revenge in Iraq? How we have made Iraq the front for terrorism?

How can I agree with what our present administration has done to that nation and their citizens, how can you.

How can anybody, I have conscience and I have feelings but what our leaders of my nation has done to Iraq is despicable and unforgivable and for generations to come we will be fighting the generations of the people we have brought nothing but sorrow.

Alone with the opportunist that always wanted to see the down fall of our nation, but is that their fault or what our politicians has done to them and us.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Is that torture? Is that cruel? Is that inhumane? In my opinion, no.


Why don't you join up apc?
You need a few "good" men in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by yanchek]


apc

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Asthma.


Originally posted by marg6043

Where they are shooting at you? here in your own nation or in the nation that is theirs.

...

How can I agree with what our present administration has done to that nation and their citizens, how can you.


Theirs? I think that is one of the core issues here... they are rogue independent elements.

And I'm fairly certain that the majority of the Iraqis are very appreciative of our actions. It's been messy, yes. It hasn't been done perfectly, of course. It should have been done in '91. But that's not what this is about.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Thematrix, I have to repeat a question I asked earlier--just what constitutes torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? Is psychological intimidation or trickery torture?


Found these discriptions of torture in Wikipedia:

Torture - Wikipedia

Torture is any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, deterrence, revenge, punishment, sadism, or information gathering. It can be used as an interrogation tactic to extract confessions. Torture is also used as a method of coercion or as a tool to control groups seen as a threat by governments. Throughout history, it has often been used as a method of effecting religious conversion or political “re-education.” Torture is almost universally considered to be an extreme violation of human rights, as stated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (enemy civilians and POWs) in armed conflicts, and signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture agree not to intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering on anyone, to obtain information or a confession, to punish them, or to coerce them or a third person. These conventions and agreements notwithstanding, it is estimated by organizations such as Amnesty International that around two out of three countries do not consistently abide by the spirit of such treaties.


Wikipedia - United Nations Convention Against Torture

The "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"(UNCAT) came into force in June 1987. The most relevant articles are articles 1, 2, 3 and the first paragraph of article 16.

Article 1

1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.


If you go to this LINK to Wikipedia it also lists ALOT of acts that are consdered torture toward the bottom of the page.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Somr other interesting quotes from Wikipedia, Even if combatants are deemed "unlawful combatants" they are still suppose to be treated humanely(which should go without saying).

Unlawful Combatants

As discussed, unlawful combatants have fewer protections under GC. If there is a question of whether a person is an unlawful combatant, they must be treated as POW's "until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal" (GCIII article 5). Note that the term competent tribunal is not defined and no requirement for neutrality is imposed. If the tribunal decides that they are an unlawful combatant, they are not considered a Protected Person under GCIV. However, even so they still have some protection under GCIV, and must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial [for war crimes], shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention" (GCIV Article 5).


So, no matter how you look at it, prisoners "must be treated with humanity", I would beleive this would include "No Torture". So whoever is responsible for the torturing going on to prisoners is acting criminally.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Noone treats our soldiers well. Never have. Why difference would there be?


We dont torture because others torture.

We need to not commit torture because we are virtuous.

Because we believe all people are create equal.

We are an advanced civil nation, that is far enough down the path to know better.

Because we are America, the beacon of light.

Let us not torture because the law does not allow it. Let us not torture because it is wrong, and we are wearing the white hats. Being virtuous takes guts and is hard to do, especially if you have invaded someone elses country when they were not even at war. How about we dont give other countries reason to hate us as we have been hated? I would like to see everyone invloved in torture of other people to be put in front of an international court for war-crimes, for it does not matter who you are torturing when you are commiting war on another people, you then have commited a war-crime if you engage in torture.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Bush is dragging the name of America through the mud. Shame.


apc

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
We dont torture because others torture.


If you were paying attention you would see that I am not stating that the fact that our soldiers suffer greatly at the hands of our enemies is justification for torture.

And... they don't hate us because of things we have done. They hate us because to them, we are infidels.

I know this is hard to follow, so to make things easy for you...


in‧fi‧del  /ˈɪnfɪdl, -ˌdɛl/
–noun
1. Religion.
...
c. (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kaffir.


We could cover every square inch of the middle east with rose plants and bunny rabbits, and our captured troops would still have their throats cut.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib


Deny ignorance people...

A lot of people are trying to claim "the president is trying to change the Geneva Convention and the laws" yet few people appear to even have read what the Geneva Convention says about "who are prisoners of war"....and unfortunately it includes some people in the military which I can only think have as a motive a political agenda.


The world found that it had to draw up the documents of the Geneva Convention because it woke up one cold bloody decade and found that there are certain people in the world that "treating people humanely" doesn't come natural for. They realized that for some odd reason you have to spell out what is totally unacceptable treatment of another human being to some sadistic folks.

I'm going to step back for a full minute and let that statement sink in.

*val watches clock ............................................................*

Let me rephrase it...to the horror and consternation of the rest of the civilized world they actually had to sit down and pen the basic humane treatment of fellow humans because they found that a huge percent of an entire nation of people were so devoid of morals and conscience they couldn't figure out what was not acceptable. Bein's they were flabbergasted by having to even enumerate what should be an inherent understanding of what you shouldn't do to another human being, they did the best they could, but still "started in the middle of the conversation" since they had lived their entire lives understanding what should be known by all.

Yeah, it's vague, because it shouldn't even had to have been written down in the first place!

So...now, we're to the point that our President is asking our Congress to give him line items that he can get around the vagueness of a document which the requirement to create should leave human kind in shame - but OUR PRESIDENT can't understand it - or even worse, WANTS TO GET IT AROUND IT.

Our President is asking for the ability to do what he knows is wrong and he knows is covered within the "vagueness" of the Geneva Convention, without getting in trouble.

If some are claiming the President is trying to change the Geneva Convention, I've damned sure missed it. But **I** am claiming he is trying to get around it. And that is a DISGUSTING turn of events.

[edit on 9-19-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
apc I will not get into a conversation with you after the way you stated this last post. In all its own unique beauty your post tells me exactly where your mind is at. You have no idea what empathy really means, and you have no idea who you think you are talking to.




I know this is hard to follow, so to make things easy for you...


I understand the mindset of Islam better than yourself. They do not care if we are infedals minding our own business. They do care if we are infedels minding theyre business. I sir happen to know more about our current world situation than, from your above post, you will never understand. Islam is regecting McWorld and you people that are McWorlders cannot understand, for your spirit is so deficet.

You should go try and do something completly unselfish for others, something virtuous...

Edit for writing this post with too much anger...





[edit on 19-9-2006 by LoneGunMan]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join