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: Yeah, we signed off on Torture. So What?

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Proof that torture works, ofcourse it won't work if the person doesn't have anything to tell he's just gonna make something up. But if they do have something to tell, thats where we get the info. How about you be the test subject, I'll have you write a number somewhere hidden, only you know where and only you know the number, you ofcourse don't want to give out the number, but I know you know where it is so I precede to beat your face in and step on your toes because that sounds fun. When you give me my answer I will go and try to confirm that it's the truth, if you lie to me I will twist your nipples off. Good boy, you gave up the number. Do you think they give them up without confirmation. And don't assume the gov't doesn't allready know that you know something.




posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Nothing in the reports indicates that he said it, and you're right that the sensationalism adds nothing except from a propaganda point of view.

Do you think it could be because of his (alleged) dismissive attitude that the headline makers took the stance they did?

Thanks for reminding me about this - I meant to comment on it earlier, but got distracted and forgot.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
If torturing is "okay" in order to "get information," would anyone be against me kidnapping President Bush and Vice President Cheney and spending a couple hours shoving bamboo sticks up their fingernails, in order to see what kind of "information" they have about 9/11?

I mean, it's for our safety!

Edited for spelling

[edit on 12-4-2008 by Double Eights]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
If torturing is "okay" in order to "get information," would anyone be against me kidnapping President Bush and Vice President Cheney and spending a couple hours shoving bamboo sticks up their fingernails, in order to see what kind of "information" they have about 9/11?

I mean, it's for our safety!

Edited for spelling

[edit on 12-4-2008 by Double Eights]


Dude that would be a really good idea, hopefully one day we will be able to do just that. If the information is important enough to concern national security big deal. Imagine what we could prevent if only Bush would tell us the truth.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Sheeper
 


Try reading this

and this

and this

Yep, torture only ever gets the bad guys - it really makes the international condemnation worthwhle.
And that's before we get to feeding the insurgency by doing it.

It's not the 1940's and this ain't nazi germany.

ANY torture is unacceptable and demeans and brutalizes evrryone involved in it.

On ANY "side"



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
So, it is now clear that when Bush and company denied using torture, they lied. This lie was repeated in many different contexts by different members of the administration, including Bush. Bush has lied to Congress and the country on so many subjects. It is amazing that any of you still defend the man. Maybe he's just your kind of liar.

In view of Bush's lies, it is utterly amazing that he is still in office. Bill Clinton's false denial of "having sex with that woman" led to impeachment proceedings. Why is Bush still in office? His lies and offenses are far worse than Clinton's.

Our government has become corrupt in so many areas. Why do the American public and so many ATS'ers overlook Bush's corruption, lies, crimes, and treasonous acts? Has it become so common that it it is now the norm and nothing to get upset about?

His opinion notwithstanding, the President is not above the law. He is certainly not above the Constitution, which he refers to as "just a damned piece of paper".

No sexual shock value, ergo, no crime?? That appears to be what it takes before our dumbed down numbed to the bone representatives and general public will react in any noticeable way.

[edit on 4/12/2008 by dubiousone]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 



Originally posted by Double Eights

Originally posted by jsobeckyCan anybody give a universally agreed upon definition of torture?


My definition: The infliction of harm upon another individual for the purpose of getting information or for funsies.

Or the dictionary.com definition: "The act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."


Ok, good. Now we're getting somewhere.

But it's not clear enough yet.

Define "harm", in terms of interrogation.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


The difference is, Clinton lied while under oath.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobeckyOk, good. Now we're getting somewhere.

But it's not clear enough yet.

Define "harm", in terms of interrogation.


Would you want it done to you? If you wouldn't want it done to you, you NEVER do it to someone else.

There should be no physical interaction (neither on US citizens nor "terrorists"), other than when your life is in danger. You do not stick electrodes to some dude's balls and then shock him when he doesn't give you all the information you want.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Again,

Torture does work, but not toward the ends that are generally given to excuse it. As an intelligence gathering tool, it is nearly worthless for reasons already well described. Torture’s main use is as a means to intimidate a populace. It’s a threat hung over everyone’s head that’s meant to terrorize them into obedience and compliance. (That’s right; I just said that torture is terrorism) That’s why the use of torture must be made public, because it’s a psychological weapon aimed at the public. Do what we say, or get what they got. It’s an unmistakable sign of tyranny, and anyone who dismisses or excuses it is complicit in it’s evil.

The real reason for torture is intimidation and subjugation.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


"it really makes the international condemnation worthwhle."

You actually made sense with that, your right, it's not worth the condemnation. We should scrap it, there are plenty of ways to gather intelligence in other ways. But to say it doesn't work, obviously it's not 100%, only the gov't has all the intel. But commen sense is really all the proof you need that it is one way of getting intel. Lest we all abandon commen sense because we all grew up with happy cartoons and happy friends that our consiounce is troubled. Were all so hopelessly happy.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by dubiousone
 


The difference is, Clinton lied while under oath.


When the President lies to Congress it doesn't matter whether he is under oath or not.

The same should hold true when he or any other member of his administration lies to the American People on matters as serious as the subject matters of Bush's lies.

His lies caused Congress to take official action with serious consequences to this nation and to the world. Many people have been killed as a result of Bush's lies. We are drowning in debt with no end in sight. Our leaders have more concern for the situation in Iraq and Iraq's stability than they have for our own country.

Do you'all not see something wrong with this scenario?

[edit on 4/12/2008 by dubiousone]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
There was a case several years ago, A terrorist was being interrogated by the US to no avail.

The CIA blindfolded him, put him on a plane, flew around for some time, then landed. When they took off the guy's blindfold, he was in a room staged to look like he was in Saudi Arabia, complete with Saudis getting ready to use their own "interrogation techniques" on him.

They never had to touch him, the guy sang like a bird.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by jsobecky]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 




Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by dubiousone
 


The difference is, Clinton lied while under oath.


When the President lies to Congress it doesn't matter whether he is under oath or not.

Not true.



Originally posted by dubiousone
Do you'all not see something wrong with this scenario?

[edit on 4/12/2008 by dubiousone]

Yes. What I see wrong with it is he is called stupid, a chimp, and many other derogatory terms here. Certainly, a man that stupid is not clever enough to fool the entire Congress, is he?

He's not the first president to claim WMD's in Iraq, either, so don't go there.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 



Originally posted by Double Eights

Originally posted by jsobeckyOk, good. Now we're getting somewhere.

But it's not clear enough yet.

Define "harm", in terms of interrogation.


Would you want it done to you? If you wouldn't want it done to you, you NEVER do it to someone else.


That's too simplistic an answer.

What if there were a foolproof "truth serum" drug with no adverse side effects? Would you condone the use of that to gather information?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Of course there's something wrong with this scenario:

We have a segment of our population (as indicated by some of our posters here) that :

1- sincerely believe that 'torture' makes us safer,
2 - attest that the use of physical terror is not inconsistent with the traditional idea of 'basic human rights,
3 - the application of torture techniques should be legitimized by the fact that the 'enemy' hates us just for being who we are.

The most important, of course, is numbers one (ends justify the means kind of thing) because as long as they are of the opinion that statement number one is correct all else is immaterial noise.

Then the other weirdness is the debate on 'What is torture?" Sadly, few here may have ever been 'tortured' so speaking from experience is like shouting into your pillow. Perhaps they think it's just a matter of pain and discomfort. This is TRULY, IMO, the pinnacle of weirdness - because in my experience, no one who has ever been tortured has come forward to say - "Hey, it's cool, as long as it's for the right cause." And most who have actually witnessed torture certainly know (in their heart of hearts) just how 'right' it is. But that doesn't seem to make any difference as long as we can claim it makes us 'safe.'

There are so many fundamentally skewed opinions on this matter that I couldn't even begin enumerate them all - I won't try. This thread is about accepting something that most people don't really have any clue about - and, no disrespect intended - but if taken, sorry - the academic approach to this is akin to asking a male doctor to describe the pain of childbirth.

May you never face terror at the hands of someone applying it clinically. Especially if its applied as some sort of 'justice.'



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
The bugger (and that is not to say anything bad about buggers
) needs to be water boarded in order for him to understand what its all about... probably wouldn't work though... the jerk is dimmer than a burnt out Christmas light.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
I think its a good thing, he does not get tried. You lot voted for him, and he did that stuff in your name. What ever history writes, our collective soul will know what america did, and your all collectively responsible.

I heard once they said, why does america have these sorts of leaders, i think you deserve nothing better than you get. Afterall you did it to yourself, like william cooper said, you lot laughed at waco. So what gives you authority to speak out against china in tibet.

George bush, is a representation of americas spirit, and i think, its a proper projection to the world.

Rant over

reply to post by andy1033
 

Really? It seemed more like a joke, instead of a rant. If you knew & appreciated the facts about American history (rather than the lies you've been fed by globalists & traitor-journalists on TV) you wouldn't insult Americans, who you've never met. What do you have against hard-working Americans & people from Tibet & other oppressed nations?

True patriotic citizens of every nation are very intelligent. We stand for liberty, justice, and the truth!

We didn't vote for any wacky, blood-thirsty globalists, such as George W. Bush (including Adolf Schicklgruber/Hitler, Yosef Stalin, Mao Zedong) and other tyrants of their ilk to become leaders of nations. They are selected by the wicked class of wealthy folks, involved in secret-societies and scientific-research facilities. They're the ones, who add poison to various foods, make almost worthless paper-money to replace the gold-standard, organize criminal organizations (secret governments & private armies) to gain more control over hundreds of nations of this world.

We're ruled by crime-lords; rapists, murderers, warmongers, and they rule over your nation, as well as they rule over the USA.

Billions of us, Americans count votes & witness the people (Bauer/Rothschild family, Druids/Freemasons, Rockafellers and other people involved in blood-thirsty cults), who bought & sold the majority of our government. If you thought long enough before you insulted our whole nation, you might have come up with a better idea than falsely-accusing all of us, Americans for selecting crime-lords as our leaders.

If you knew American history, you would know George W. Bush wasn't elected by any of us, patriots. We are ruled by people, who support wicked: wealthy criminal-families, Nazis, Zionists, money-changers, globalists & everyone else of their ilk.

Learn more about the people, who control the U.S. federal government before you blame any of us for putting them in their offices/positions as ambassadors or presidents of the USA:

You can start by learning more about the crimes & empires of these globalists & cults, which are still being supported by loyal crime-lords of today:
Bauer/Rothschild famlly
Rockefeller family
Adolf Schicklgruber
Vlad the Impaler & his descendants
Nazis/Zionists
War-profiteers
Money-changers

Hitler & the Zionists part 1 of 2


Hitler & the Zionists part 2 of 2


[edit on 12-4-2008 by ChadOnLife]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 



Originally posted by Maxmars
Of course there's something wrong with this scenario:

We have a segment of our population (as indicated by some of our posters here) that :

1- sincerely believe that 'torture' makes us safer,
2 - attest that the use of physical terror is not inconsistent with the traditional idea of 'basic human rights,
3 - the application of torture techniques should be legitimized by the fact that the 'enemy' hates us just for being who we are.

For the sake of discussion, I'll give you 1 and 2. Point 3 is an untrue allegation made by you to incite the debate.



Originally posted by Maxmars
Then the other weirdness is the debate on 'What is torture?"

What is weird about asking for a definition? The definition is probably the most important part of the debate. Else, courts of law have no foundation to work with. Any old definition will serve as "torture", including frowning at you.

You see, you have no direct knowledge on whether torture, or the threat of torture, has ever made us safer as a nation. So your plaintive arguments are no more than your opinion.

I don't think we should make torture a part of our legal system. But I am not willing to say that there would be no circumstance where it would be warranted.

That's the problem with discussions like this. People take the moral high ground and condemn those who disagree with them.

Why not answer the truth serum question I put forth?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by dubiousone
 


The difference is, Clinton lied while under oath.



No! Lying to Congress is a crime even if the liar is not under oath and regardless of who the liar is, whether it be the President or a member of his administration. Remember, justice is not a respecter of persons, i.e. whether your criminal behavior is a crime does not depend on who you are, at least in principle. (Former N.Y. Attorney General and N.Y. Governor Elliott Spitzer appears to be a prominent exception as I understand he will not be prosecuted for his sex crimes. If you are a person of sufficiently high profile it seems you are immune from prosecution for the "minor" offenses that the common man is routinely charged with and convicted of. It is good to have money and be connected in America.)

It seems that the issue is not whether the lies to Congress are a crime. The issue is whether the liars have sufficient money and connections to prevent anyone who dares to think of calling them on their lies doing so.


[edit on 4/12/2008 by dubiousone]



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join