Bush not restricted by torture bans...

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

I never said nobody was tortured. I asked for some sources....you do have some, don't you?

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

i'm sorry, I cant imagine you seriously want me to answer that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, too busy cracking up just now. I hope you realise just how stupid you look... are you doing this deliberately?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:aua

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Are you perhaps trying to tell me that you don't have any reliable sources?

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

if you REALLY REALLY don't know, why dont you do a simple google search - "US military torture" and see what it brings up, eh? Then take your time and READ and UNDERSTAND what it says. They even have coloured pictures for the illiterate.

Go on, show us all how willing to educate (or edjumacate as dubya would say) yourself you are...

Go on then... then come back and talk to us with a little more knowledge than you have now. Even .001% more would be an improvement...

:aua

Christ almighty!

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

I would hope that the occasional violation of orders is not what you are referring to. I would hope that for the sake of this discussion you are referring to something that has been sanctioned by US government and is being carried out on a regular basis with all Iraqi prisoners per orders. You are referring to this, right? And have some sorce to back you up, right?

questionnaire · Joined: 29 May 2003 Posts: 640

How many times does she have to tell you? Do the search yourself, we can't spend all day cutting and pasting for you. Do you want us to fly over and wipe your a*se for you as well?

Here's one to get you started. I've deliberately chosen a British newspaper that supports Blair and the illegal invasion.

US Torture Iraqi prisoners

Bush says he's horrified about this. Even if that is true, which I doubt, it makes things even worse, because it means that Britain and the US have been led into a war and an occupation by people who have no idea of the horrors that always accompany such brutal actions.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Yes...it is exactly as I thought. Nothing sactioned by the US government. In fact there were soldiers court-marshalled for doing this. This is old news. This kind of thing has happened with the soldiers of other armies as well. It also happens every day in probably every country in the world where there exists a police force and supected criminals. This is not a statement on how the US has conducted itself while in Iraq, but a statement on the nature of human beings. If you can't see the difference, then there is no point for any further discussion of the matter.

Rev9Volts · Joined: 10 Jul 2003 Posts: 1327

yapping dogs, bread and water piling each on top. that ain't torture pulling yer finger nails off is torture...

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
Have you read the memo?

I have, of course, read the 53 sides that are available.

You have not?

If not, get it from The Wall Street Journals public resources. It has been up there since the beginning of Week 24.

Edited by: Galmin at: 6/13/04 14:07

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
Yes...it is exactly as I thought. Nothing sactioned by the US government. In fact there were soldiers court-marshalled for doing this. This is old news. This kind of thing has happened with the soldiers of other armies as well. It also happens every day in probably every country in the world where there exists a police force and supected criminals. This is not a statement on how the US has conducted itself while in Iraq, but a statement on the nature of human beings. If you can't see the difference, then there is no point for any further discussion of the matter.

Quote:
This from FOXNEWS:

"WALLACE: New subject. It turns out that Justice Department officials wrote legal memos stating that the president was not bound by prohibitions against torture in dealing with the war on terror.

And while the White House says that the president never approved any sort of torture, it has now been revealed that the senior officer in the area, General Sanchez, did approve more aggressive tactics at Abu Ghraib, including the use of unmuzzled dogs to intimidate detainees.

As a career military officer, are you troubled by any of this?

POWELL: As a career military officer and as an American citizen, I am deeply troubled by what happened at Abu Ghraib. I'm devastated by it. This is not the Army I knew."

The Road to Abu Ghraib

(Human Rights Watch)

According to HRW, the Abu Ghraib scandal is not an isolated incident, since there are a buch of reports from Camp Bucca, Al Qaim, FOBR (al-Asad), Camp Whitehorse etc.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

1 - Did these "more aggressive tactics" constitute torture?

2 - Although, IMHO, still of questionable relevance...were the articles of the Geneva Convention violated?

3 - Was this ordered at a level higher?

These are the questions that need to be answered. According to HRW, a persons human rights are violated if somebody spits on them...I would hardly conclude that that would contstitute torture...which was what we were originally discussing. Personally, I think that if HWR could have gotten away with it, they would have used the word "torture"...that is, after all, in line with their agenda.

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
1 - Did these "more aggressive tactics" constitute torture?

The term "more aggressive tactics" is from FOXNEWS (fair and balanced), the tactics however are listed in the HRW report.

Quote:
2 - Although, IMHO, still of questionable relevance...were the articles of the Geneva Convention violated?

In Irak? You bet!

Quote:
3 - Was this ordered at a level higher?

According to FOXNEWS it was condoned by the highest ranking military officer in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez.

Quote:
These are the questions that need to be answered. According to HRW, a persons human rights are violated if somebody spits on them...I would hardly conclude that that would contstitute torture...which was what we were originally discussing.

Noone dies from getting spit at.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Galmin - "In Irak? You bet!"

...but this thread is not about Iraq...is it.

And even if it was, having dogs bark at you would not constitute torture, in my book. By that line of thinking, anybody who even thinks about killing somebody is guilty of murder and should be thrown in jail. Stop and think if you really want this line of reasoning to continue. Can you say "Thought Police"? And you are the one who seems to support "Guilty by Thought". Do you really want to go there?

As I mentioned before (though it might have been in another thread), the few incidences of torture that did occur in Iraq were not limited to those committed by US soldiers, but by soldiers of many armies. How come you do not speak to this? And how about the torture committed by terrorists? How come you do not speak to that? What you have "uncovered" occurs in every country that has police and criminals...in other words, all of them. Are you going to champion their cause as well? It is more a statement of human nature than anything else. It is getting more and more difficult, Galmin, to believe that you have an unbiased opinion towards the United States, and that your motives are strictly based in the interests of world peace and human rights. More and more they seem to be just means to an end.

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
...but this thread is not about Iraq...is it.

It is about the general carte blanche cited in a pentagon policy paper, that very easily could be the root to the problem and thus about Iraq too.

Quote:
And even if it was, having dogs bark at you would not constitute torture, in my book.

It wouldn't in mine either, though people have died in detention with signs of physical violence. People usually do not die from dogbark, do they?!

Quote:
As I mentioned before (though it might have been in another thread), the few incidences of torture that did occur in Iraq were not limited to those committed by US soldiers, but by soldiers of many armies.

There are british troops right now in court. The central command of the occupationforce is, however, in US hands.

Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the highest ranking military tier in Irak, had condoned the "special treatment".

Quote:
And how about the torture committed by terrorists? How come you do not speak to that?

Because the president of the united states is not their boss.

Quote:
What you have "uncovered" occurs in every country that has police and criminals...in other words, all of them. Are you going to champion their cause as well?

I probably will, in a thread about the presidents in the respective countries getting clean cards from lawyers to break the law.

Quote:
It is getting more and more difficult, Galmin, to believe that you have an unbiased opinion towards the United States, and that your motives are strictly based in the interests of world peace and human rights. More and more they seem to be just means to an end.

Uh, hello? Did you forget the subject of this thread all of a sudden?

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Galmin - "It is about the general carte blanche cited in a pentagon policy paper, that very easily could be the root to the problem and thus about Iraq too."

Again, nice try. The memo is mentioned in the paper...but there is no "carte blanche" in it.

Galmin - "It wouldn't in mine either, though people have died in detention with signs of physical violence."

And how do we know that they did not enter into detention with these signs? You'll have to do better than that.

Galmin - "Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the highest ranking military tier in Irak, had condoned the "special treatment"."

You're beating around the bush. You know as well as I do that this "special treatment" did not constitute torture...if it did, Sanchez would be subject to court-marshall as well, wouldn't he. Do we see this happening? No we do not.

Galmin - "Because the president of the united states is not their boss."

Oh...I see. Torture is only bad if it happens under the authority of the US president. Otherwise it's OK...isn't it. Is it really torture that you have a problem with?

Galmin - "I probably will, in a thread about the presidents in the respective countries getting clean cards from lawyers to break the law."

:rollin

You've yet to show that this has happened!

Galmin - "Uh, hello? Did you forget the subject of this thread all of a sudden?"

Not for one minute.