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.

 

At Least One American Believed Killed by Freed Gitmo Prisoners

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

Originally posted by stikkinikki

I thought that was the job of the Executive Branch to enforce the laws as they interpet. The Democrats did not control the House and Senate for all of GWs 8 years. Did Congress ask GW and Cheney and crew to waterboard those prisoners? Provide evidence please. Thank you mod.


1. No, The laws are interpreted by the Supreme Court, (As well as Appellate Courts to some extent)
2. The Democrats Controlled BOTH the House and Senate for the last 2 years of President Bush's Administration.
3. I was not aware that President Bush or Vice President Cheney Water-Boarded anyone. Source Please?
4. Name is Semperfortis, please refer here:
Moderators Are People Too. (and they have opinions)

Thank you
Semper


Regarding #3... you dodged and spun the question with your answer, but I will admit the question could have been worded better.

Reworded for clarity and hopefully to get your take on it:

Did congress authorize waterboarding or did Bush/Cheney authorize waterboarding?




posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Here's your proof that Bush is guilty of waterboarding.

I know it's MSNBC but it's still a good look at the facts.

Bush Guilty Of Torture



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I had no clue that Keith Olbermann was a sitting Judge and could find someone "Guilty" of anything.. Fascinating actually!

As for a President Authorizing Water boarding.

I did a lot of things in the military and never once did I get a letter of authorization from the President.

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out as to Water boarding being any form of torture at all.

As for you all calling it torture, could you please provide a source link to one of the people working at Gitmo that the Obama Administration is holding on charges of Torture by Water Boarding.. Please?

Thank you
Semper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Did you bother to actually watch the video? He states sources and quotes judges who speak of what happened at Gitmo and say that it met the defining standard of Torture, and then George is quoted as saying he knew what was going on, asked if it was legal and then determined the information they got from him validated his actions.

He knew about it, that's pratically a confession.

And no he's not gonna write an "authorization" note that says Waterboard him. But he did authorize the CIA to use they're own manual instead of the Army Field Manual as usually required.

You can't expect an administration like George's to be "innocent" of anything if you look at they're behaviour in the past 8 years and then things that have been uncovered.

Do you really think these people as being trustworthy? After spying on all Americans illegally? After trying to get retro-active immunity for crimes that may or may not have been commited during his administration?

Come on now...think a bit.

~Keeper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
1. No, The laws are interpreted by the Supreme Court, (As well as Appellate Courts to some extent)



You would have thought so!

Waterboarding is Legal, White House Says


The White House said Wednesday that the widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding is legal and that President Bush could authorize the CIA to resume using the simulated-drowning method under extraordinary circumstances.
******SKIP******
But in remarks that were greeted with disbelief by some members of Congress and human rights groups, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that waterboarding was a legal technique that could be employed again "under certain circumstances."



But, since most of the Supreme Court were under Bush's "spell", they never EVEN ONCE voiced their opinion on this matter!

If the Supreme Court did come out and say waterboarding was or wasn't torture, I must have missed it!

[edit on 2/7/2009 by Keyhole]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


semper.....please do not 'cop out' with that stale 'argument'.

It is beneath you.

245 (about) current detainees in Gitmo.

Tens of thousands of Taliban and al Quaida currently loose in the World, guessing in Afghanistan and Pakistan border regions.

SO.....out of the 200 or so alleged 'hard-core' enemies currently in detention, letting them loose is going to cause more danger?!? (Knowing that most of those in captivity were swept up, and are likely NOT even what would have been considered 'hard-core' seven years ago...).

It is simply not logical.

...ring, ring..."Hello? Chicken Little? Pass this on....the sky is falling!!!"



And somewhere, Darth Cheney is clucking to himself............



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Come on now...think a bit.


Contrary to what you are possibly thinking at this very moment, I do. I just think differently than you do.

While I am aware of the currently "Politically Correct" and "I want to be popular too" opinions of the Bush Administration, I however have chosen to be "not so politically correct" and not so "popular" and simply do not agree with what most here are so very fond of accusing President Bush of doing.


semper.....please do not 'cop out' with that stale 'argument'.


I fail to understand why my beliefs are a "Cop Out" simply because they differ from yours? Interesting take on something, but not very open minded.

Kind of like.. "Either agree with me, or you are wrong" Fascinating.

My opinions have been formed mostly in the military, where I have spent some amount of time dealing with those that would harm this country. I stand by those opinions.
I am against the closing of Gitmo most vehemently, although my opinion on that matters zero, it is still my opinion.

And I must say, I have not belittled anyone's opinion here and fail to see the necessity to belittle mine. I do consider your opinions to be intellectually formed and worthy, just different than mine. I would ask for the same respect.

Thank you
Semper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Referring back to my earlier point.

The conlict in Northern Ireland had various similarities with the so called war on terror.

The main one is that people turned to terrorism after being arrested, imprisoned (interred) and being subjected to "rigorous" interrogation - this happens when people feel (rightly or wrongly) that they have been treated injustly.

Now that's not to say that all gitmo prisoners are innocent, but without doubt, some are not guilty of the crimes they have been accused of committing.

Info here

More info

Does it not seem logical, that some would seek revenge for their treatment in gitmo?



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Hello there semper.

I was wondering why you did not respond to my post.

I asked who authorized water-boarding, congress or the two headed monster that was Bush/Cheney?

Also, it is worth noting that what will be our new Attorney General does consider waterboarding to be torture: Eric Holder calls waterboarding torture



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Using the excuse that one "turns" to anti-social behavior, be it terrorism or simply crime, is no more valid a human concept then getting "dinged" on here for responding to an insult with another insult.

In real life, YOU are responsible for your posts. as well....

While that excuse would sometimes work when we were children, the simple fact is "we" are all responsible for our own actions.

reply to post by ImaNutter
 


I very succinctly answered your post. Please go back and reread my post; it is very clear.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Yes we are - but it must also be a factor that gitmo changed some of these peoples perceptions.

I have no doubt that they are quite aware of the choices they have made - but there is a very good case to say that they have been changed by their experiences.

You wouldn't deny that experience changes perception, and therefore actions, would you?



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher

How long has Obama been president and didn't he just announce the closure of Gitmo last week? One would presume that the prisoners were released under the Bush and Cheney watch, therefore, your ire should be directed at the previous administration for their incompetence.


I made it perfectly clear in the original post that the prisoner in question was released under the Bush administration, you even quoted it.

The point, i.e. that thing flying over your head, is that the expansion of this stupid policy of releasing people who want to kill us back into the wild, is now considered protected speech by the mainstream news media.

In other words, if Obama does it, we won't criticize him, i.e. it's a media conspiracy.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



You wouldn't deny that experience changes perception, and therefore actions, would you?


How does that make one "NOT" responsible for their own actions?

A persons perceptions are not germane to their actions if those actions are harmful to society.

Because a man is poor and perceives a wealthy man has "too much money", does not give the first man the right to rob the second.

Semper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


I think what's being said here is that if a person wasn't a terrorist when they went in, they would certainly be sympathetic when released. They would be in with terrorists and the comms would be like, "See brother, this is what we're fighting against". Pointing to their own mishandling. How many in Gitmo had nothing to do with terrorism? We don't know as due process was not followed.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


But if the rich man uses his money to subjugate, or harm the poor man, would that not cause more than a modicum of resentment?

There is cause and effect at work here, lest we forget.



[edit on 7/2/2009 by budski]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I see what your saying, but my stance still holds..

"We are all responsible for our own actions"

As for due process, Prisoners of war are not subject to the United States Criminal Justice System and therefor no due process.

I have friends that are serving and have served at Gitmo, as you may imagine, and the MSM stories are somewhat different than what really transpires there.

Just throwing that out; not that it will alter anyone's perceptions in anyway. This is one of those issues where either you swallow the MSM contentions, or you don't. I have enough "real life" information, that I will not be swayed by the allegations from the MSM.

Semper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Resentment has never been listed as "cause" for a criminal action. I would speculate not for terrorism either.

I sometimes resent my boss, I am not going to blow up his house because of it.

Let us not forget, these are NOT, I repeat, NOT domestic criminals. They are prisoners of war and enemy combatants. HUGE difference.

Semper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
As for due process, Prisoners of war are not subject to the United States Criminal Justice System and therefor no due process.


Yes but confining a possible innocent for years IS going to have an effect on him. Will he come out all peachy? Not likely. He'd be looking for revenge. So it goes that a "possible" terrorist may now be a "probable" one. The making of him in Gitmo. The actions AGAINST him being the factor, not ones own responsibility.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I agree with what your saying and the concept.

However, that does not in anyway excuse criminal or terrorist actions.

Also remember that in my scenario we are talking absolutes.. "They ARE responsible... etc

In your scenario, there are "Possibilities"... "Possibly innocent.

Semper

Edit to add...

We can also never forget that "Revenge" is NOT a valid reason for criminal or terrorist behavior either.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
The point, i.e. that thing flying over your head, is that the expansion of this stupid policy of releasing people who want to kill us back into the wild, is now considered protected speech by the mainstream news media.



No, it's considered obeying the law!

If they broke a law and there's enough evidence to try them and convict them in a court of law, I hope our court system diligently pursues them and convicts them.

But if there isn't even enough evidence to CHARGE them with a crime, ...

Obama Legal Advisers Draft Plans for Guantánamo


The Pentagon concedes it has no evidence to charge the majority of the 250 detainees with terrorism.



then they should be set free!

That's just the way our legal system works.

And we all know it's not perfect, especially after that OJ Simposon fiasco, but
it's the laws of our land that we pledge allegiance to, and they should be followed by our government above all others!

[edit on 2/7/2009 by Keyhole]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join