Bush advisor says Bush has legal power to torture kids?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Man, I don't know what to tell you.

I heard this audio, as well as read the article. The guy is at a college in Chicago, and someone asks if Bush could have kids of terrorists tortured. The guy says yes, basically...just read for yourself.

Bush advisor says prez has legal power to torture children

Oh...y'all don't like Infowars, my bad. Hold on a minute...

Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

So, not only does Alberto Gonzales think Bush is the law, now this Yoo guy. I guess this goes along with them admitting that they tortured kids back in '02. The guy actually said Bush could have guys crush the nuts of these kids. Imagine, crushing a kid's testicles to "get the location of the nuke" from terrorists.

It never ends...


[mod edit] Please don't put "WTF" in your thread title.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by dbates]




posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
So a professor "thinks" that the U.S "could" torture children. So what?

Theres Islamic clerics who "think" that israel "should" be obliterated.
Theres Christian fundamentalists who "think" that obortion doctors "can" be killed.

There are a lot of people with ideas out of left field.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
There is no law to prevent me from blocking the sun's light so I could do it and get away with it. Reference to the Simpsons

Actually, since the President is a US citizen, he would be helkd accountable to the same laws as any other citizen. If he were to order the torture of a child, if he were to torture a child (or an adult for that matter) He can and will be prosecuted by the same judicial system that anyone else would. He could of course be held accountable for such actions by the World Court just as Melosovich.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
There's no need to do all that. As long as you threaten a terrorist's kids in front of him he will probably talk, and that I believe is legit



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
So a professor "thinks" that the U.S "could" torture children. So what?

Theres Islamic clerics who "think" that israel "should" be obliterated.
Theres Christian fundamentalists who "think" that obortion doctors "can" be killed.

There are a lot of people with ideas out of left field.


So what?

It's not just that people have opinions. This guy is an ADVISOR to Bush. He's not just some crackpot who supports torturing kids. Just like Alberto Gonzales. In his memos, he said that Bush is above the law; now, he's attorney general. Again, it ain't just some fool who says this, it's a person who has connections to Bush.

And, kenshiro, those prison guards who went to prison were ordered to torture the detainees, yet the people who gave the orders weren't accountable. So, I disagree that Bush would get into trouble.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
well technicaly no one can torture anyone according to the Geneva Convention, although terrorists don't play by the rules so what makes you think we should, though not to tortue kids thats just wrong.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Senor_Vicente
well technicaly no one can torture anyone according to the Geneva Convention, although terrorists don't play by the rules so what makes you think we should, though not to tortue kids thats just wrong.



For the same reason that Police are ment to follow the rules even thou criminals don't - that's how you can tell the difference between a crime and a guardian.

It's called leading by example.
This current American regime is like the Boss telling the workers they'll get fired for stealing stationary, yet at the end of the day this Boss is packing his briefcase with 'freebies' to take home. They'll tell you how wrong the other side is and then believe that gives them a line they can toe in order to get things done for themselves.

Terrorists started chopping off heads so that gave the US a new line they could toe and aslong as they don't make videos of cutting peoples heads off, they'll always be that one step 'less' evil.

The more you make your enemy look bad in the publics eye, the more slack you have to get away with, so of course, now torture is a 'good thing' and aslong as they don't try to kill them, they aren't crossing the line!

Brilliant. These should be remembered as the 'CIA Years'.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

The more you make your enemy look bad in the publics eye, the more slack you have to get away with, so of course, now torture is a 'good thing' and aslong as they don't try to kill them, they aren't crossing the line!


So you would potentially allow deaths of civilians because we have to follow a “higher standard”?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
How many people is it okay to torture and kill to potentially save lives? What happens when you wind up torturing and killing more people then would have been hurt in the first place? Is that still okay?

Besides if it's okay to torture people to potentially save lives shouldn't we start torturing domestic criminals too? I'm pretty sure more people have been killed and injured as a result of regular run of the mill street crime then terrorism so would'nt that mean regular crime is a greater threat to national security and should be treated accordingly?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
exactly!
Stop and think for a second why we're doing what we're doing in the first place. To save lives. Now i wonder how many lives could be saved if we threw half of this war money to ooooh i dunno healthcare?
somethings definately backwards here



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
There's no need to do all that. As long as you threaten a terrorist's kids in front of him he will probably talk, and that I believe is legit


I see you use the word "probably", so what do you do if the terrorist doesn't talk? Do you back off your threat and thus expose your weakness and show the terrorist that you do not have the spine to do it or carry on with crushing a childs testicles and be the same scum they are?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
What the hell are you saying??Torture is ok???Are you all mad???



If the US torture is no different from the terrorists. How can you talk about the terrorists and the evil things they do, and say that they are the bad guys if you share the same methods.
Using this methods only brings more violence and makes the terrorists groups stronger. The way the US are fighting this war is wrong and the american citizens will suffer the consequences.
I think many of you don't knowwhat you are talking about. I'm sorry but I have to say this. You don't know what is war, suffering, lose your best friend or your family because this stupid stupid thing that is WAR. VThis violence, this way of thinking that we must fight terrorism with violence will make many inocent victims and I hope that don't come the day that this way of thinking will consume us all.

mod edit to remove censor circumvention, click here and review this thread

[edit on 13-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
How many people is it okay to torture and kill to potentially save lives? What happens when you wind up torturing and killing more people then would have been hurt in the first place? Is that still okay?

Besides if it's okay to torture people to potentially save lives shouldn't we start torturing domestic criminals too? I'm pretty sure more people have been killed and injured as a result of regular run of the mill street crime then terrorism so would'nt that mean regular crime is a greater threat to national security and should be treated accordingly?


Man, you said it!


Let's start torturing regular criminals instead of looking for evidence to convict them. I mean, if you get them to confess, there's no need for a lengthy trial and all that, so let's torture em!!! That would make America safer, no doubt.




posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
First of all lets define torture, when I say torture I mean things like getting roughed up, beat up, simulated drowning, stress positions etc. I don't mean excruciating pain, or extensive bodily harm. If we are restricted to the point where we cant even physically touch them then they know all of our threats are just words.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
One thing I've never understood is the euphimism regarding the simulation of drowning how exactly do you "simulate" drowning? In my experience your either drowning or your not. Either you can breathe or your can't and you really are asphyxiating.

Also I might add anything unpleasant enough to "make someone talk" is potentially lethal. Roughing and beating people up doesn't sound too bad until you accidently beat someone to death. Drowning simulations and stress positions all sound fine and dandy until you accidently induce a fatal stress heartattack in the subject . Congratulations you just successfully tortured someone to death...

Torture is torture is torture there are no degrees of torture anymore then there are degrees of murder. At the end of the day something bad just happened and in my opinion if your going to do something bad don't equivocate. Go all out be a savage brute live and fight as hard as you possibly can. Don't be surprised though when history remembers you as a monster and not a hero.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
no law against torture?

funny

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

it implies right there that just because a right is omitted that doesnt mean it isnt a right, the right to not be tortured is indeed protected by law. its an inherent right that needs no law to exist.


Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.


from caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

[edit on 13-1-2006 by namehere]
mod edit, to use {ex }




[edit on 13-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Also I might add anything unpleasant enough to "make someone talk" is potentially lethal. Roughing and beating people up doesn't sound too bad until you accidently beat someone to death. Drowning simulations and stress positions all sound fine and dandy until you accidently induce a fatal stress heartattack in the subject . Congratulations you just successfully tortured someone to death...


WTF? Maybe someone views a question and answer session with the police as unpleasant because he unintentionally confessed to the crime under the stress. Should we ban that too because someone could potentially get a heart attack from being asked questions by the police? What you are implying is that our regulations for interrogation should read something to the effect of :

1. Ask nicely, be kind, and speak in calm and friendly voice.
2. Follow every question with a “Please could you kindly answer that question?”
3. If the above did not work maybe we will have better luck next time. .



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
There's no need to do all that. As long as you threaten a terrorist's kids in front of him he will probably talk, and that I believe is legit


Can't say that I agree with that. Terrorists usually have very strong beliefs, usually hatred, towards a group of people, a government, idea, etc. Terrorists are usually willing to sacrifice themselves, their wife, or kids in order to go against the force that their hatred is centered upon. An excellent example is suicide bombings. They sacrifice themselves for their "greater cause." Usually, the same will remain true when it comes to sacrificing their family. I don't think a terrorist would so easily give in to the threat of their kid(s) being tortured.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Was there a pajama party of twelve year olds responding to this thread???


WTF is right!


We are talking about children!

:shk:

EDIT: OK. I re-read this thread and realized that the pajama party was not as large as I first thought. Sorry for not having read more closely. Select whichever is appropriate to your post(s)... the apology ...or the remaining criticism.



[edit on 13-1-2006 by loam]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
WTF? Maybe someone views a question and answer session with the police as unpleasant because he unintentionally confessed to the crime under the stress. Should we ban that too because someone could potentially get a heart attack from being asked questions by the police? What you are implying is that our regulations for interrogation should read something to the effect of :

1. Ask nicely, be kind, and speak in calm and friendly voice.
2. Follow every question with a “Please could you kindly answer that question?”
3. If the above did not work maybe we will have better luck next time. .


Don't try to twist this so it seems the only alternative to torture is namby pamby tea and crumpets sugar honey ice tea!
There is a huge difference between asking questions and physically abusing someone! I don't know if you realize this but when you beat someone you are causing actual physical damage to someone when you cut off someone's air supply you are causing actual physical damage to them.

Now I'm sure having Corporal Fleischkopf apply peroneal strikes to the subject may seem like the pinnacle of interogational finesse to you but I assure you it's not. It is impossible to safely apply physical force when you have no accurate means of judging the affect said physical force is having. You can't tell if you gave someone a concussion just by the the feel of your fist smacking them in the face. Only a medical examination can truly determine the physical condition of the prisoner and the affect the physical abuse is having on the prisoner's physical condition. Unfortunately by the time a medic actually gets around to examining the guy the damage has already been done unless of course you somehow have a medic examining the guy while he's being beaten....
"Okay now stick out your tongue and say ahhh..."
*PUNCH!*
Aiiii!!!
"No say ahhh..."
*KICK!*
Yaah!!!
"No...ahhh..."
*STOMP*
AHHHH!!!
"Very good! This man is in excellent health let the interrogation continue"

By the way if you don't see how inducing asphyxiation for the purposes of interrogation would be fatal to someone with say asthma or a heart condition well there's really not much else I can say is there....





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join