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.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Let the speculations and allegations continue. They have thus far for almost a year.
Originally posted by CazMedia
I think this thread is an exercise in torture, having to listen to soo much peacnick whining is causing me mental agony.
Originally posted by CazMedia
I think this thread is an exercise in torture, having to listen to soo much peacnick whining is causing me mental agony.
Some gental pressure to gain intelligence during a war, and this is the result? Boo hoo feel good for the bad guys capitulation?
Originally posted by Seekerof
As per the topic of this thread, ACLU: Bush Authorized Torture, Kidfinger, I suppose your going to say next is that the President must have authorized this soldier, you described as happening at Gitmo, to do what he was doing? Maybe Rumsfield? The CIA? The FBI? The DoD? Someone other than himself authorizing such? Or was he acting independently?
seekerof
Originally posted by CazMedia
I think this thread is an exercise in torture, having to listen to soo much peacnick whining is causing me mental agony.
Some gental pressure to gain intelligence during a war, and this is the result? Boo hoo feel good for the bad guys capitulation?
Ill agree that a lot of effort has been done to be accurate here, and that the discussion has been interesting,
Actually this thread has brought up a lot of concern and good issues on the part or our administration so is very unfair to call it names when most of the posters has done a very good job on "reading" and "researching" to make it a very interesting post.
Yeah? Me too, and i agree with him....i want to know that everything possible short of abuse is done to ensure your safety, mine, our soldiers in the field etc.
I care that it is our country, and president that is condoning these actions.
Indeed that is the IDEAL for which we'd like to believe in, yet reality both for us and the rest of the world isnt conforming to this.
This is supposed to be America, a place where everyone is on an equal playingfield with no obfuscation of ethics and standards entertained.
And overall we are and do, however peace is often earned, not given. The same with respect. While the civilized world may have respect for us slipping a bit, i think the radical muslim terrorists have a much better respect for us now that we are DEMANDING it. Did they respect us on 9-11? Secure the peace because otherwise your a TARGET. Why do you think bullys pick on the meek and weak? because picking on the strong or ones that will oppose you isnt nearly as lucrative.
We are supposed to be the people of the right. The people of peace and global respect. Bush is making a mockery of America and people like you are willing to let him do just that.
a huge YES here!!!
If your kid decided to rob a bank with his/her buddies, then was the only person to get caught, would you still feel this way if you child was tortured to find out who the accomplices were?
Originally posted by CazMedia
Do you think criminals like/respect the laws that say dont rob banks?
If they did, they wouldnt have robbed it in the first place (they didnt fear the concequences enough), yet you think by just being nice and saying NO dont do that, that they will just comply eh? Where is the deterance?
This is called diplomacy, and its great until the first punchs flies.
you don't 'war for peace', you 'peace for peace'. anyone who's avoided as many bar brawls as i have KNOWS this.
Umm ok if you say so, but thats another thread.
p.s. the 'illuminati' shadow cabal executed nine one one, not 'fanatic muslims that hate our freedom'.
In general yeah, but greed knows no bounds. when is enough enough? for some never.
people who have everything they need, don't rob banks. THAT is the deterent for bank robbery.
what makes 'terrorists' different from bank criminals?
you think this 'war on terror' will stop any fanatic who is willing to pay his life for what he sees as 'justice'?
you think indiscriminatley killing a HUNDRED THOUSAND innocents will deter a genius fanatic from carrying out his plans against 'the man'? i would say he is much more likely to be even more fanatically empowered to carry out 'terror' on the 'enemy'.
Originally posted by CazMedia
This is called diplomacy, and its great until the first punchs flies.
Like youve never encountered someone that wasnt taking "no" as an answer, or worse yet sucker punches you when your not looking?
i was brutally stripped naked and assaulted for no reason what so ever, by a group of college lads, while i was in high school. i was one, they were more than at least ten, closer to fifteen. i will not condemn all of humanity, ESPECIALLY NOT OTHER INNOCENTS for the behaviour of a few sick #s.
weak diplomats make weak diplomacy.
Originally posted by CazMediaIf they didnt think they could get away with this to start with as they had already seen examples of the concequenses, they may have chosen a different target or aproach to you. If all they see is capitulations by you, then they will "smell the fear" and come right at you...animals react in similar fashion.
agreed. the key point to observe is the behaviour of predators. save the labels as to who's who.
Originally posted by CazMediabillybob theorizes,
Umm ok if you say so, but thats another thread.
p.s. the 'illuminati' shadow cabal executed nine one one, not 'fanatic muslims that hate our freedom'.
i only brought it up because you were using the extreme nature of nine one one to call for extreme retalitorial measures, i.e. torture, which I, the less than mighty billybob, DON'T CONDONE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. i am not a big fan of capital punishment, either, but it is HIGHLY preferable to torture. tell the 'bad guys', "we'll kill you if you don't tell us", and then, kill them if they don't tell you. it's still WRONG in my 'liberal' eyes, but it is the lesser of two evils: murder(very, VERY bad) vs. torture(pure evil).
Originally posted by CazMediaIn general yeah, but greed knows no bounds. when is enough enough? for some never.
indeed. one MUST look at haliburton and enron/kennyboylay/bush to see just how far this kind of evil can spread.
Originally posted by CazMedia
terrorists ARE criminals.
yes. they are. let's find the real ones, instead of shooting everyone with a towel on their head, and then sticking one of those "HELLO, i'm A TERRORIST" stickers on them.
let's look at apparent cover-ups, whacky-stupid 911 physics, insider trading and the agendas of powerful secret societies, instead.
Originally posted by CazMedia
Not in the slightest, yet he will know that if/when he's cought, there will be uncomfortable concequences.
right. so we make big punishment(fear of torture, [AKA TERRORISM]) a 'deterent' KNOWING that it won't deter anything, but it might make mister/missus strap-on-bomb lose a little sleep, OR make him/her more determined. good. makes sense. what else can you use besides terrorism in a war for, ..uh, ...AGAINST terrorism?
Originally posted by CazMedia
i take exception with the term "indiscriminatley" as well as the as yet unproven # you cite.
however, the enemy can be as fanatical as he chooses, it makes NO difference as to OUR resolve to defend ourselves and deal with them by using methods of interrogation to determine his plans against us.
well, i for one, am not going to the middle east to count bodies, and re-assemble body parts guesstimatively. however, i'm sure there are WAY more than enough dead innocents to make my argument stand.
there is NO difference between the kind of 'resolve' you are expounding, and how 'fanatical' the enemy is. you don't get rid of a pimple by rubbing dirt into it.
So you would allow the torture of your child to find out who helped? WTF man! Are you SERIOUS! I have just lost ALL hope in the conservative party. Caz, I have an extra flashlight for you as well. It seems you are keeping someone company while being lost in the woods.
Originally posted by CazMedia
a huge YES here!!!
First of all, my kid would have been warned there were consequences if he commited these acts, and if he chose to violate them, he deserves the concequences...(id be dissapointed in him/her, but they still must learn and be accountable)
Second, If there were others running loose that were involved and my kid was holding out their wherabouts, id say "youve shown great loyalty, but where are your friends now? there letting you twist in the wind for them while they run free." I would certantly NOT want my kid to be scapegoated by "the man" and would expect that ALL guilty parties be held accountable equally. If my kid was still showing arrogance by claming up...id say he continues to deserve the fate he's making for hjimself...again heart breaking to know your kid is STUPID, but as id think that he could survive the approved techniques and they are not out of line, again..he made his bed.
Originally posted by DrHoracid
any of you whiny "don't spank my child" libers speaking out your ARSE here. Your hate for this admistration has corrupted your thinking. FACTS mean nothing to you people. Only the allegation.
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL.
Originally posted
THERE WAS NO ABUSE OR TORTURE. President Bush, Rumsfeld, and the troops know and understand more of whats is happening in the WAR than any of you whiny "don't spank my child" libers speaking out your ARSE here. Your hate for this admistration has corrupted your thinking. FACTS mean nothing to you people. Only the allegation.
Well then I ACCUSE all you anti-bushes of aiding and helping terrorism. Leave america and find out what real abuse and torture is. I am sick of the baseless BS being vomitted here. As posted earlier in this dribble I admitted being a POW under the Khmer Rouge. THAT WAS TORTURE. When any of you can speak with similar authority then your "opinion" has has value on this subject.
Seekerof you have my respect and admiration for staying to the FACTS.
Originally posted by 77
Originally posted by marg6043
"Seekerof, That is more incriminating.
Why? Because the Bush administration changed the law regarding the treatment of detainees when his administration redesign the Geneva convention and stripped them of protection.