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

reply to post by ChadOnLife


I love it when people do their homework!



I happen to be a student of this 'evolution' or 'devolution' of our nation. I have found that there are those who simply wont look at the evidence. When this is compounded by traditional antagonisms, we get the whole - "you Americans yada yada ..." types.

I can't seem to get people see that there are TWO separate United States of America; There's the Corporate-Fascist Regime driven by the Elite International Wealth Masters, and there's the rest of us.

When Bush (or whoever for that matter) starts waxing patriotic about protecting America - I guarantee - he is NOT referring to 'the rest of us.'

[edit on 12-4-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by dubiousone

reply to post by resistor


Starred - great post.

This is not a one line post

reply to post by Maxmars

You seem to know more about those folks than I could even imagine. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with all of us. It's so true how people, who hate America don't seem to understand how similar the counterfeit tyrannical-government(s) of America are to their counterfeit, tyrannical-governments. They're all managed & controlled by globalists, who put our presidents & other high-ranking diplomats into positions as state-representatives even though the majority of intelligent Americans don't vote for them.

We don't vote for the people, who oppress us. We shouldn't be blamed for selecting tyrants, who have allegiance to Zionists, Nazis, the Pope , and other cult-leaders of this world.

reply to post by IMAdamnALIEN

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
Anyone else get this mental image when Bush speaks?

Yosemite Sam!

LOL!

Except Yosemite Sam always winds up getting his ass kicked, repeatedly, before the cartoon is over.

In this unfunny lampoon of ethical governance, we the people, are getting our Constitutional asses and our righteous moral standing before the court of world opinion kicked to the dirty curb, by an obstinate little man wearing a hat forty-three sizes too big.




reply to post by Double Eights

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!

Eh, don't hate on the Bush, he's a spoiled, privileged little brat, an "insulated" sock puppet; he deserves to be spanked soundly and sent to bed without dinner.

And no coloring books until his wars are finished and cleaned up after.



Now Cheney, on the other hand, upon being simply threatened with what he whole-heartedly (although he has no heart) approved for others, i.e., torture, and, being the cowardly shortchanged chickenhawk that he is, would promptly soil himself and squeal on everyone he's ever known, (including the unfortunate women that spawned his evil ass,) like a stuck pig, (no offense to our porcine friends intended.)

Because, yeah, he's a draft-dodging coward.

So, in this case, simply the threat of torture would be sufficient to make him sing like a canary.

Which leads into my next point:


reply to post by jsobecky

Originally posted by jsobecky
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.

Thanks for making the point that physical torture nets little reliable data, whereas, psychological methods do in fact yield quantifiable results.

Even though I would posit that you in fact "fudged the facts' of why the subject actually spilled the beans, according to what I understand to be the case.

Would it be too much too ask for you to provide the name of the subject in question and the supporting evidence to bolster your assertion so that we can compare notes?

Ball's in your court.


reply to post by jsobecky

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

Who wouldn't?

What more humane method could be devised to interrogate a suspect?

Surely you aren't suggesting that such a technique would somehow, in some remote way, be vaguely comparable to physical torture?!?

[edit on 12-4-2008 by goosdawg]

Off-topic comments removed

[edit on 13-4-2008 by dbates]

reply to post by goosdawg






That was a great read. Keep it up goosdawg.


Seriously, so what? So what Cheney said so what about 2/3s of Americans wanting the Iraq war to end. So what Bush stole the 2000 election. So what we torture civilians. So what our constitution is just a "god damned piece of paper." So what Bush/Cheney lie nonstop. So what.

Stop me when I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Alxandro

Then why are they able to capture even more of these well known terror suspects using the information obtained during the torture process?

Oh my.
All you hear of 'information obtained' is from the government.

This is the same government that LIED in order to start the war in Iraq.

They don't tell the truth about anything.

You have no way of knowing what the 'suspects' really said, just second hand propaganda from KNOWN liars.

Originally posted by goosdawg
reply to post by IMAdamnALIEN

 

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
Anyone else get this mental image when Bush speaks?

Yosemite Sam!

LOL!

Except Yosemite Sam always winds up getting his ass kicked, repeatedly, before the cartoon is over.

Your right he does!

Does this mean that justice will be served eventually?

I would even go for the Karmic revenge......Like.......

Maybe bush plans on going on another vacation....Then........BAM.....Tornado rips apart his entire ranch, leaving the rest of the surrounding area untouched.

Then he'd be all like...



Then he'd be all....



"Lets get them thar terrorists!"

Then someone whispers to him, "tornadoes are acts of God Mr. President"



Ahh shoot, can we at least blow somethin' up then?





[edit on 12-4-2008 by IMAdamnALIEN]

reply to post by goosdawg

Originally posted by goosdawg
Thanks for making the point that physical torture nets little reliable data, whereas, psychological methods do in fact yield quantifiable results.

No problem. Someone had to do it. Others seem incapable of little more than giggling over their cartoon fantasy's of what the prez and VP would do in certain instances.

Originally posted by goosdawg
Even though I would posit that you in fact "fudged the facts' of why the subject actually spilled the beans, according to what I understand to be the case.

That's what I remember of the case. I can't remember the guy's name. No facts fudged here.

And I'm not interested in your "understanding" of the case.

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

Originally posted by goosdawg
Who wouldn't?

What more humane method could be devised to interrogate a suspect?

Surely you aren't suggesting that such a technique would somehow, in some remote way, be vaguely comparable to physical torture?!?

You're missing the point. I'm trying to establish what people define as torture, and what they would consider OK as far as interrogation methods.

You somehow mistakenly tried to equate the two. Some other sidetracker was bound to come along and do the same, thanks for shortening the wait. However, please do try to keep up.



[edit on 13-4-2008 by jsobecky]

Ah, cartoons and childish prattling about the VP soiling himself.:shk: How profound!

And they want to merge PTS back into ATS?!?

WOW(yea I said it again)I cant single out one poster cause like 4 or 5 replyed back harshley with what I said-I guess I was right or made you all think of something uh?Oh well Ill just post this to the general board.

You claim that we(people who support torture)are cowards,you throw stuff at me like "learn to read",you bring up how "Allah"is the Christian God too(Obviously you take things in without disecting the abstract of what I said-I was using Allah to refer to Muslim's religion-maybe your just not smart enough-or have no other argument than that,I dont know)

Someone said I am blind to what the government is doing?WHAT ARE THEY DOING-CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME AND BACK ALL OF IT UP WITH CONCRETE EVIDENCE!!!!ALL I SEE (as far as this issue goes)IS OUR GOVERNMENT PROTECTING THE (now look closely here)AMERICAN CITIZENS FROM TERROR.Im glad,I really am that you claim you know so much-well how bout this-why dont you and all your lil friends that believe like you do on this post an throughout the world go have a little hippie party,and put on your tin foil hats(to protect you from the governments mind control-lol)and talk about how if you werent abunch of lazy,cowardess,cyberbullying-not even social in the real world and live in your own "middle earth",talk but not walk people-than you would run the US government different.But hey guess what while your doing that try to remember that YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO,WITHOUT BEING TORTURED OR KILLED because you are living in this "crappy,tyrannical"nation that has these rights of free speech-and try to think of maybe what it would be like if your "innocent"terrorist ran the country-DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS?

I gota go now-I have a REAL life to live-I have REAL work to do,and I will go outside not in fear,but in confidence-confidence that I will be able to say and do what I want as long as it is within the law,confidence that I dont have to worry about being bombed at my local grocery store.

-JKrog

Also someone said "truth serium w/o side effects"

Who cares about hte side effects,Sodium Penathol only sedates as a side effect....no we dont wantthose damn terrorist to be sedated now do we?ROFLMA

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

since they added a rider to a bill last year that granted amnesty and immunity to all Bush Cabinet members and others acting on behalf of them from prosecution for war crimes, I doubt you will ever see anyone pay for what the have done to us all...

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

since they added a rider to a bill last year that granted amnesty and immunity to all Bush Cabinet members and others acting on behalf of them from prosecution for war crimes, I doubt you will ever see anyone pay for what the have done to us all...

Of course, and only in the realm of fantasy, a case could still be brought - especially if the Justice department and Judicial branch weren't to 'object to and obstruct' the charge (on technicality alone the system would allow them to stretch discovery in a case like this out for 50-100 years (ala JFK).

What is about to follow is one of those 'tooth fairy' kind of things I choose to share because it is technically correct:

Juris Prudence in this country has not been completely destroyed yet. As smart as the great jurists of the courts are, they - and many other officers of the court - have not been able to eradicate certain citizen powers, like "Jury nullification."

The truth is any jury, all by it's lonesome, could undo their ability to prostitute the 'spirit of law' to their advantage.

I won't bore you with the details. But I suspect that among them, walks at least one who knows just how vulnerable they would all be, if the 'wrong' 12 people were called to serve on a jury in the appropriate jurisdiction.

Originally posted by jsobecky
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.


Wrong.
See 18 USC Section 1001.
Link: www.law.cornell.edu...

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 is called these things because those who use these derogatory terms in describing him are frustrated to the limit by his incessant lies and betrayal of the Constitution and their beloved country (or, as this administratioon likes to call it, the "Homeland").

His intentionally false statements to Congress and the rest of us are crimes whether or not anyone is fooled by them.

Will you sing the same song after Bush is out of office and the next President, a Democrat, lies to Congress in order to get their agenda moving?

It appears that you defend Bush's total lack of integrity, or am I not reading you accurately? I use the word integrity in the broader sense of the term. I am certain that Bush could be considered as acting with complete integrity when judging his words and actions against his personal code of ethics (which doesn't include honesty toward or concern for the interests of most of us in this country or on this planet).

[edit on 4/13/2008 by dubiousone]

[edit on 4/13/2008 by dubiousone]

Hasn't anyone noticed how hard ALL the news media seem to be trying to get McCain elected? No one's digging up anything about him this week, are they? When there's a Republican in Office, the media gets a "pass" and when the Republican screws up, the media has a field day. They really don't want a Democrat in Office; it would be bad for business.

reply to post by dubiousone

Originally posted by jsobecky


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
Wrong.
See 18 USC Section 1001.
Link: www.law.cornell.edu...

Title 18 deals with Crimes and Crminal Procedure. For someone to be prosecuted, he would have to had lied under oath.

I don't remember Bush having lied under oath.

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?

Originally posted by dubiousone
He is called these things because those who use these derogatory terms in describing him are frustrated to the limit by his incessant lies and betrayal of the Constitution and their beloved country (or, as this administratioon likes to call it, the "Homeland").

You bring up a point which is used often: frustration. People use emotions as an escape clause for bad behavior. It is nothing more than lack of self discipline expressing itself as justification for foul language, shouting down speakers, etc.

Originally posted by dubiousone
Will you sing the same song after Bush is out of office and the next President, a Democrat, lies to Congress in order to get their agenda moving?

Just because I state facts, doesn't mean I endorse a particular position. Many people here cannot tolerate difference of opinion, and hate it when facts are stated. They take it as an us vs them dilemma.

Originally posted by dubiousone
It appears that you defend Bush's total lack of integrity, or am I not reading you accurately?

I defend the rights of American citizens, whether it is Bush, Cheney, or someone else you despise. Many here would deny them their rights simply because they dislike them. They wouldn't like it if the tables were turned, however.

Originally posted by Tweaked
Hasn't anyone noticed how hard ALL the news media seem to be trying to get McCain elected? No one's digging up anything about him this week, are they? When there's a Republican in Office, the media gets a "pass" and when the Republican screws up, the media has a field day. They really don't want a Democrat in Office; it would be bad for business.

With all due respect to the OP and those now wanting to get 'partisan' I tell you - it absolutely will make NO difference who is nominated nor elected. Over the past 4 or 5 decades the judicial, legislative, and administrative branches has been increasingly marginalized by influences outside the 'constituency of the population.' No effort is being made to rescue the ship from these mutineers. There are PLENTY of seriously f*'d up nasty skeletons in McCaine's closet - many are just as bad if not worse than some of his opponent's. But when your comparing rap sheets, none would qualify for any positions of trust - except they are rich, well-connected and popular - meaning the press will endorse them as 'viable'.

All I can say is I sincerely hope there is a future for us which will include the opportunity to apply the lessons that this sham of a political system has foisted upon us. For now all we can do is batten down the hatches and whether the storm.

reply to post by Maxmars


Beautifully stated---Took the words right out of my mouth...There is ZERO difference between these parties or their Elite chosen candidates...EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM serves the same interests, and those interests have NOTHING to do with making America a better place, nor serving the populace...They are in reality one giant, monopolistic party, which is an extensional arm of the people who "really" run this country---The Corporations and Military Industrial Complex.

Make no mistake about it: Any candidate that has made it this far has already been "pre-screened" to uphold the vested interests of the above entities. Otherwise, they would never be given a shot (i.e. Rion Paul) by the corrupted media (which are also extensions of the above entities).



[edit on 13-4-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

reply to post by jsobecky


I have to add that I noticed your post touching on the topic of 'lying under oath'.

With your permission I would like to mention that regardless of the 'letter of the law', and the 'plausibility of denial' defenses, it is not 100 % fool-proof (there's a pun in there).

A standing president (nor any of his cabinet members) are free from exposure to liability for what they say and or do - oath or not. It has to do with the nature of the position being held and the intent of the law being applied. This is not to say that anyone would want to spend the lifetime it would take to make the charge stick.

Until such time as we see the Supreme Court exemplify a standing based on the 'letter' of the law in deference to the 'spirit of the law', there is a glimmer of hope that such a sophistic defense won't stand.

The American people still, if only in theory, can compel any court in the land to take one of those 'But I wasn't under oath' statements, and send it rocketing up the boy's tailpipe. For now at least, the judge is NOT more powerful than a jury. That may change, and let's not forget how unlikely it is that any president, standing or otherwise, would face trial by jury - I'm not sure they would ever let it happen.

Most of these people fear justice and the light of truth. One of the few self-evident facts that almost everyone can see (unless they have their eyes closed.)