Bush: "We Do Not Torture"

[Commissar]

This must be what a discussion killer looks like, I could make absolutely no sense out of your last sentence. 

 

Did you have a point Commie? Or you just going right wing on me? (oh the irony)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not right wing to suggest that Europe needs the US.

[Lucius]

We most certainly don't need your intelligence agencies roaming around acting like they can do as they please, nor do we need to have you stirr up the entire middle east... We can do that ourselves if we want to later on.

[Commissar]

We most certainly don't need your intelligence agencies roaming around acting like they can do as they please, nor do we need to have you stirr up the entire middle east... We can do that ourselves if we want to later on. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well...

 

You can't stop our boys, since your governments are allowing it. Even if you wanted to, you probably couldn't catch them anyway.

 

As far as the Middle East goes...we're sort of sitting on our hands at the moment and seeing how you blokes do with Iran.

[Lucius]

Catching them, or blowing them outta the sky? The latter might be wishful thinking on my behalf.

 

As for Iran, knowing your dear administration, they'll probably invade no matter the outcome.

[kumquatq3]

Catching them, or blowing them outta the sky? The latter might be wishful thinking on my behalf.

 

As for Iran, knowing your dear administration, they'll probably invade no matter the outcome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

O come now, all you have to do is drap it out for 1 or 2 more years and Bush won't have the political capital to invade.

 

Tho I'd watch France. Bush might land troops to "restore order to the country"

[Lucius]

The French would welcome them with the usual ****tail of US-h8, followed by sex, followed by more US-h8 and finally a good portion of arrogance towards everything outside Paris. With cheese.

[kumquatq3]

followed by sex,

 

 

 

give me a gun and point me towards Germany

[Hildegard]

I think you'll find that you have much less support in these forums for your beliefs than you seem to feel.

 

People might not like or agree with my views, but they think that your just irrational.

 

The difference between me and them? I like puttng your nose in it. I guess their just better that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Let's take this from the start - I stand by my statements that all rioters in France who did what they did were conducting actions of violence-primitivism and by those actions marked themselves as primitives.

The fact is the majority of the rioters are immigrants/muslims, but not all muslim/immigrants are rioters - primitives as I called them, on the contrary many of the immigrants in France are against such ways because it only harms them rather then helps.

I never said or meant that all muslims in France are primitives and if you misunderstood something from my statements, that were pretty harsh I admit, I'm sorry but you're taking this the wrong way.

I know that almost everybody on this forum doesn't share my beliefs, in fact I know many of the people here don't like me and even hate me - but that really doesn't bother me as I'm only trying to state my opinion, not to rally some support here or any other bullsh*t.

I am an anti-US, I don't hide that fact nor I ever did, you can call me many things but please don't call me a rasist because many can confirm on this forum that I stood up for the muslims when the talk of ME came up and I never said anything directly against them and their religion.

Sure there are numbers of immigrants/muslims in France who have done acts of violence and primitivism, but that isn't explicitly a case of muslims as you can find examples of the same or worse primitivism in all other religions or ethnic groups through out the world.

Edited November 12, 2005 by Hildegard

[Raphael]

ha ha ha - Hildegard's a rasist

 

*points finger*

 

[The Great Phantom]

Bit off topic, but...

 

:D :D :D :D

I saw the Daily Show's version of this stuff... it was kinda funny, even if I have nothing against **** Cheney personally...

[Walsingham]

We seem to have drifted back to the riots more than the torture allegation. Can more points on that issue move to a dedicated thread?

 

on a related poitn, I notice peopel constantly reiterating their positions on certain issues. I'm starting to wonder why we don't put them in our damned sigs? Or would you all agree that set positions are demeaning to the intelligence of the users?

[Hildegard]

Italy seeks 3 more purported CIA operatives as the agency seriously violated italian sovereignty in my view...

[Judge Hades]

If we have nothing to hide then why are we hiding, President Bush?

[Lucius]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the devil himself, defender of torture and vice president of the United States.

 

[Hildegard]

If we have nothing to hide then why are we hiding, President Bush?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Everybody that is actively engaged in world affairs has something to 'hide', your country is no exception...

[Lucius]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hades is from the US.

[Dark Moth]

One very simple explanation: you don't want your enemies to know how you work. First rule of warfare: know your enemy. If you don't know your enemy, that's one more advantage they have over you.

[Hildegard]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hades is from the US.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So?

[Lucius]

Nevermind.

[Yrkoon]

In some circumstances. Such as if torturing someone would prevent another 9/11 but then what would be your call in that situation ?

As a self-proclaimed lawyer, YOUR call should be clear and obvious, ShadowPaladin. We should NEVER come close to torturing any detainee. Ever. Especially if we think he might be involved in a massive future terrorist plot--like another September 11th.

 

I'm not sure what legal systems are in place where you're from, but here in the USA, our system has strict rules and regulations for the protection of suspects that must be followed at every level. This is for a reason. Its to ensure reliablity of a witness, accuracy of a testimony or statement, and most importantly, to ensure total transparancy of the whole process. The theory is that after the strict process is applied from the beginning to the end, only the most reliable and truthful information survives it.

 

So... how exactly is beating a confession out of a suspect (in private) going to produce reliable information for us? How exactly will sleep deprivation, naked pyramids, sodomy via chemical light and water boarding, (all of which can and will take place in secret prisons void of any open and transparent legal process) going to yield us the vital, life or death information we need to prevent another September 11th? If we torture a suspect, how in the world will we know that the information he gave us was the truth, rather than BS that he decided to spout so as to end the torture being administered to him?

 

Also, regarding Cheney's argument, that the CIA should be exempt from any torture laws...how exactly will that promote serious CIA investigations? I mean, what incentive does the CIA have to check, double check, verify and falsify raw information? I mean, Why bother, when they can "win" a case at the tribunal by pounding a "confession" out of a prisoner?

 

No. The whole White House argument of "The CIA should be exempt from the rules" when our national security is at stake is probably the most asinine and dangerous argument this administration has ever made.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Yrkoon]

PANAMA CITY, Panama -    President Bush on Monday defended U.S. interrogation practices and called the treatment of terrorism suspects lawful. "We do not torture," Bush declared in response to reports of secret    CIA prisons overseas.

 

Bush supported an effort spearheaded by Vice President    **** Cheney to block or modify a proposed Senate-passed ban on torture.

 

"We're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible, more possible, to do our job," Bush said. "There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet we will aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law."

 

Cheney is seeking to persuade Congress to exempt the    Central Intelligence Agency from the proposed torture ban if one is passed by both chambers.

Full text here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_...wh/bush_torture

 

So if we don't torture, why do we need to exempt the CIA from a potential ban on torture?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

^Yep. LOL. But there's another element to this farce.

 

Rumsfeld and Cheney actually defending the CIA's right to freedom.

 

Since when? They have, since the very beginning, attempted to sideline the CIA. Cheney has gone so far as to create his own intelligence organization which happened to come in direct conflict with the CIA numerous times before our invasion of Iraq. What exactly is Cheney's motivation here?

[Yrkoon]

George W. Bush is an idiot.  Saying we don't torture yet we have ample proof that we do thanks to that prison scandal in Iraq.  He is jut spouting off more Republican lies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not the same thing. When he says it he means as a matter of policy. What individuals do is not down to him, as long as they are punished for their actions via the legal system thats about all he can do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In fact, we have proof that the Bush administration condoned torture as a matter of policy a whole YEAR before we took control of Abu Ghraib from Saddam Hussein and started operating it ourselves.

 

Or perhaps you've not heard of the torture memos of 2002?

Edited November 14, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Yrkoon]

But Hades is making it seem like torture is a routine policy of the U.S.  The fact that these soldiers get arrested in the first place for it, and the public outcry they face as well, should make our stance clear, shouldn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First off, since when does public outcry = proof that torture isn't a US government policy?

 

Second, not a single member of the US military in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanaimo Bay has ever been arrested (or convicted) for torture. Charles Graner came the closest. And he was convicted of: 1)Assault, 2)conspiracy, 3)maltreatment of detainees, 4)committing indecent acts and 5)dereliction of duty.

 

Wanna take a stab as to why there were no torture charges?

Edited November 14, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Yrkoon]

There is nothing to indicate that this sort of thing is widespread

LOL no of course not. We've only got strikingly similar methods of sodomy, degradation and humiliation, water boarding, deaths via blunt objects to the head (ruled as homicides) occuring simultaniously at Abu Ghraib (Iraq) and 3 seperate prisons Afghanistan. And occuring over a period of 6-9 months. And this all happens within a year of documented corrispondence between Rumsfeld, the CIA and the Justice Department's legal council regarding the question of "what can we get away with?" What a coincidence.

 

 

LOL you crack me up Shadowpaladin.

 

Actually the one of pictures in the UK tabloids turned out to be fake too.

OH BOY!

 

For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirmed, which have not been released to the public due to their "INTERNATIONAL CRISIS" potential. (<---hint: these are not my words) That's right, THOUSANDS.

 

Shadowpaladin, do you even have a clue as to what you're talking about? Very few government officials in the WORLD are still arguing, as you are, that this is just a "few bad apples". Our own government has gone *beyond* this argument and is now addressing the system itself. Explain to us why this is the case.

 

Your going to find bad commanders too, thats inevitable. However the idea that the president gets his jollies ordering that sort of stuff dosnt make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find the idea of a President who wishes to incite the masses so as to goad terrorists to come out of hiding and carry out attacks (so that we may capture them) to make lots of sense.

 

Diabolical and reprehensable, but totally in line with the Neo-Con doctrine.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Yrkoon

[kumquatq3]

In fact, we have proof that the Bush administration condoned torture as a matter of policy a whole YEAR before we took control of Abu Ghraib from Saddam Hussein and started operating it ourselves.

 

Or perhaps you've not heard of the torture memos of 2002?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:Devils advocate:

 

That would be the Justice deptartment telling Bush what interrigation acts are legal. Not Bush condoning anything.

 

To quote the Washington Post (not exactly Bushs best freind):

 

the 2002 and 2003 memos reflect the Bush administration's desire to explore the limits on how far it could legally go in aggressively interrogating foreigners suspected of terrorism or of having information that could thwart future attacks.

 

So, a letter asking essentially what is and what isn't legal isn't exactly a smoking gun, no matter how coldly and bluntly it was worded

 

Charles Graner came the closest. And he was convicted of: 1)Assault, 2)conspiracy, 3)maltreatment of detainees, 4)committing indecent acts and 5)dereliction of duty.

 

Wanna take a stab as to why there were no torture charges?

 

Because of lots of reason: 1. Because of the legal grey area of: What is "severe". That word is used alot, but not defined.

 

2.The "terrorists" are not civilians, but not POWs by any Geneva definition and all sorts of various loopholes in the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

 

Basically, if brought to trial under US law, the charge wouldn't stick.

 

(<---hint: these are not my words) That's right, THOUSANDS.

 

Not saying your wrong, but curious:

 

1. Whose words are they?

 

2. I know there was unreleased photos, but it was my understanding it was more soldier taken shots. Hence, not THOUSANDS. Link please?

 

:End devils advocate:

 

that was fun

Edited November 14, 2005 by kumquatq3