Bush's Support of Torture: Global Impact and Un-American Reputation

[Ivan Seeking]

I have said it many times: These clowns [Bush and company] are much of what once defined the enemy. They have shown themselves to be un-American, if not enemies of the Constitution, by nearly every standard that I know.

The amendment that the Senate attached to its defense spending bill ended a legislative silence on how far the administration should go in interrogating prisoners. It also set up a possible confrontation with the White House, which has threatened to veto the bill if the final version contains any language that, in the administration's view, would restrict the president's ability to carry out the war on terror.

...The amendment, offered by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, shouldn't be the least bit controversial. It would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" and firmly establish the current U.S. Army Field Manual as the guide for service members when they detain or interrogate prisoners [continued]

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion...,0,3121533.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines

Google the subject and look at how the rest of the world views this. How does this make us look?

 

[Rabid]

Nays


Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00249


Surprise, Surprise.

 

[Brad_1234]

There should always be respectful treatment of prisoners. Your post here indicates an outrage towards inhumane treatment. But then consider Saddams regime? He has surpassed Adolf Hitler in crimes against humanity, torture, murder, and brutalities that cannot even be spoken of.

The democrats/left should have supported the Iraq war 100%, even been demanding the US topple Saddam. It was shocking to observe people PROTESTING THE WAR? On what grounds?? Somebody call Ripley! but then HE wouldn't have believed it!

In the abu Ghraib incident, top intelligence agencies, actual James Bond 007 level groups figured out hey, Arab men have an incredible phobia of being naked in public. In the US and much of nude Europe, people cannot imagine being so bashful. So what? But to Arab men, its a social taboo and neurotic hangup.

Instead of use Saddams torture, Intelligence agents stripped Arab men and took photos. New arrivals, supposedly, were shown the photos saying cooperate or you will be humiliated like this. It was highly effective. Men who were toughened to pain could not stand to be humiliated, and they sang like pidgeons

The intelligence folks setup the lower soldiers to take the blame, were gone, and so it went. The hearings on the matter which I studied many times came out to show top intelligence folks "got away" so nobody high up was in trouble.

They used humiliation instead of torture, seems like a good choice, no?

 

[Astronuc]

The amendment, offered by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, shouldn't be the least bit controversial. It would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" and firmly establish the current U.S. Army Field Manual as the guide for service members when they detain or interrogate prisoners.

I'd have to read the amendment, but there is a potential loophole if the amendment does not apply to any and all agents of the US government. If the law only applies to service members, then the administration can circumvent the law by allowing non-service members to do the interrogation (or torture). The Bush administration can also use mercenaries, which it has done in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are not contrained as are service members.

Indeed, it is troubling if the US government allows torture or any means deemed necessary, while promoting 'American values'.

Now I have heard several members of Congress express no regrets about the treatment of the detainees - the assumption seemingly being that the detainees are obviously terrorists! However, most of the detainees have been released - therefore I cannot believe that even the majority are terrorists.

Torture is unacceptable - period - and more so if the person is innocent.

To torture innocent persons puts the Bush administration in the same spot as Saddam Hussein and other dictators and terrorists.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ah, but perhaps God told him to torture prisoners if needed.

 

[loseyourname]

The White House has said that torture is not administration policy, so there is no reason to resist the legislative language clarifying for service members what is and is not acceptable.

If this is true, it doesn't sound like Bush will veto this, or that he has any problem with the amendment. (It's from your link.) I certainly hope that's the case.

 

[Anttech]

He has surpassed Adolf Hitler in crimes against humanity, torture, murder, and brutalities that cannot even be spoken of.

You must have a short memory! Hitler ordered and supported the genocide of all Jews killing 6,000,000! He Starting a World War and invading most of Europe, during which almost 60,000,000 people died! If you ever come to Europe, go to Auschmitz.

http://www.remember.org/jacobs/

Your statement is utterly ridiculous, and is offensive. (I hope you retract it)
Anyway if it is true, which it most certainly is NOT, how does that make The American Administration? The people who put him in power!

top intelligence agencies, actual James Bond 007 level groups figured out hey

007 level :rofl:

 

[deckart]

This tops it, you guys are freakin fanatics.

 

[Astronuc]

This tops it, you guys are freakin fanatics.

No, just vehemently opposed to cruel and inhuman punishment and torture.

 

[pattylou]

The democrats/left should have supported the Iraq war 100%, even been demanding the US topple Saddam. It was shocking to observe people PROTESTING THE WAR? On what grounds?? Somebody call Ripley! but then HE wouldn't have believed it!

You seem to be forgetting, that many of the questions from the left before the supremely shortsighted and flawed invasion of Iraq, were things like:

Why Iraq and not North Korea?
Why Iraq and not Iran?
Will spending resources to promote democratic values abroad, hurt our *own* citizens?

The questions still stand, Brad. How far do you think we should go? SHould we just start nuking any country we think are inhumane??

Do you see any basic problems between this approach, and the ideals of democracy?

An answer would be appreciated.

 

[Gokul43201]

Instead of use Saddams torture, Intelligence agents stripped Arab men and took photos.

Okay, that makes them better than Saddam. Hooray !

 

[Andre]

About who was the biggest mass murderer, Adolf was a mere local gang leader compared to Joseph

 

[Berislav]

Bush favors torture

Odd. I never thought Bush was into SM. :yuck:

 

[jimmie]

cruel and inhuman punishment and torture.

will always be possible so long as one particular nation holds politcal power to compete with an other particular nation that holds political power, and neither particular nation empowers the whole.

The current way is every nation/man for himself, with their attention always on the 'other' and never the one, always looking to the outside rather to the inside.

Any particular administration (nation/man) that intended to be "right" always scrutinized their own self first, and minded their own business ONLY. Only after their own business had been mastered (only import of materials that are NEEDED, only export of materials that are NEEDED), that particular nation was in the "right" position to do anything, including offering assistance to an other administration.

Any particular administration (nation/man) that intends to be "right" always scrutinizes their self first

and for all human history, I am not aware of ANY particular political nation that intended to be right. It simply was not possible. A system that allows multiple political powers forces every political power to monitor (allocate their attention/energies/monetary funds--see "Defense Budget") an "other" political power. In that type of system, no political power was free to vertically integrate their energies, free from competition or fear of loss.

When a particular political nation that had not mastered its own business intended to have a presence in any way in an other particular political nation that had not mastered its own business, the only ongoing process in that situation was the spreading of chaos, and the symptoms thereof (see Air Pollution, Associations, Borders, Careers, CO2 Emissions, Competition, Consumers, Corporations, Daily Extinction of Animal/Plant Species, Death, Debates, Disease, Fear, Free Offers, Gangs, Illegal Immigrants, Illness, Invasions, Legal Processes, Liberations, Losing, Loss-of-Habitat, Mergers, Non-Renewable Energy, Ozone Depletion, Peace Agreements, Permanent Members, Political Parties, Ratings, Reach Advertising, Rebates, Red-Tape, Religional Sects, Trade Agreements, Trade Sanctions, War, Water Pollution, Winning).

Let it be known: The current political situation everywhere on the planet is chaos; there is not one house in order, and the literal climate is indicative of that, whether (weather) or not the particular nations face the truth and accept it.

"Want" to rule the world? Rule your "self" first.

 

[BobG]

If this is true, it doesn't sound like Bush will veto this, or that he has any problem with the amendment. (It's from your link.) I certainly hope that's the case.

I can't imagine how Bush could veto it without trashing his image beyond repair. I'd consider the early Whitehouse comments to be a major blunder.

Now, the President gets to choose between looking like he's backing down or following through with a fight that will look insane to the average person. The Whitehouse would have to be incredibly creative in how they present their case if the President plans to veto the bill.

Just initiating this bill is a huge slap to the Bush administration. McCain dissed Frist with the 'Gang of 14' and now he's set his sights on stealing Republican leadership from Bush.

 

[Astronuc]

McCain Rules!

Just initiating this bill is a huge slap to the Bush administration. McCain dissed Frist with the 'Gang of 14' and now he's set his sights on stealing Republican leadership from Bush.

I hope McCain gains momentum. I guess we need pull out the McCain bumper stickers and placards.

I don't necessarily agree with all of McCain's positions, but I'd love to psych out the Bush administration. :rofl: Muahhahahaaaaa!

 

[edward]

A slight hint of torture here

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2005-February/017518.html

Al-Jamadi died in a prison shower room during about a half-hour of
questioning and before interrogators could extract any information,
according to the documents, which consist of statements from army prison
guards to investigators with the military and the CIA's Inspector General's
office.

One army guard, Sgt. Jeffery Frost, said the prisoner's arms were stretched
behind him in a way he had never before seen. Frost told investigators he
was surprised al-Jamadi's arms "didn't pop out of their sockets," according
to a summary of his interview.

Frost and other guards had been summoned to reposition al-Jamadi, who an
interrogator said was not cooperating. As the guards released the shackles
and lowered al-Jamadi, blood gushed from his mouth "as if a faucet had been
turned on," according to the interview summary.

The thing that bothers me the most about the prisoners in Iraq was that most of the torture (or however you want to label it) was done to obtain information about the non existant weapons of mass distruction.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If this is true, it doesn't sound like Bush will veto this, or that he has any problem with the amendment. (It's from your link.) I certainly hope that's the case.

It's just more of the same. This is who they are. This is who the American people elected, twice!

The Bush administration fought tooth and nail against the amendment, claiming that it would tie its hands in the war on terror. Naturally, no administration spokesperson would say that they intended to treat terror suspects in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way, but that's what they mean. The administration has walked a fine line, claiming that techniques such as "waterboarding," forced nudity, "stress positions" and mock executions are legally permitted because they're not technically "torture" (a conclusion shared by few experts) and because they're still "humane" (a conclusion shared by practically no one) [continued]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks8oct08,0,579902.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

The Bush administration is only against saying that it favors torture. But then this has been their game all along: Say what enough people want to hear and then do whatever they want.

 

[loseyourname]

It's just more of the same. This is who they are. This is who the American people elected, twice!

Well, the man is done at this point. Even Ann Coulter turned on him last night on Bill Maher's show.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, the man is done at this point. Even Ann Coulter turned on him last night on Bill Maher's show.

And this from her website (Smurf, lookee here) :

I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.

Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues — loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ...

 

[Astronuc]

This [Bush/Cheney] is who the American people elected, twice!

Well, only about 36% of eligible voters voted for Bush the second time, roughly 34% voted for Kerry, and about 30% voted Nader, someone else, or not at all.

Those % are based on US population of 174 million elgible voters (age 18 yrs and older), but only 122.3 million votes were cast.

So the majority of the population who are eligible to vote, did not want Bush as President, or at least not strongly so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So the majority of the population who are eligible to vote, did not want Bush as President, or at least not strongly so.

I think your point is that Bush does not represent the heart of the American people, and I hope that you're right. However, the fact that these guys weren't tossed out on their butts or indicted on any number of criminal charges tells me that the system is broke. I mean really, this whole mess has been much worse than Watergate, but it seemingly went on with the consent of those in power and a significant percentage of the US population. So in mind the criminals aren't just Bush, Cheney, and Rummy, the list includes every Republican Senator and Congressman who supported him on any of twenty or thirty separate occasions.

 

[devil-fire]

im not surprised the bush administration is in favor of removing restrictions on any form of turture. at this point I am thankfull for not having to see in the news they are resuming chemical and biological weapons research, but then again there is still time left

 

[Anttech]

About who was the biggest mass murderer, Adolf was a mere local gang leader compared to Joseph

60 Million is way too many, the Red Army were totally brutal, but not in the effect of 60,000,000

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I hope McCain gains momentum. I guess we need pull out the McCain bumper stickers and placards.

Even as a Democrat [not really but in practice these days...] I would vote for McCain just to help ensure that the power in the Republican party shifts to a credible platform.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Even as a Democrat [not really but in practice these days...] I would vote for McCain just to help ensure that the power in the Republican party shifts to a credible platform.

Don't ever mistake McCain for a moderate. He is a social and national conservative, who looks attractive just because he's compared to the incompetent Bush regime.

If you really think of yourself as a Democrat, then don't fall for the hocum!

 

[EL]

Don't ever mistake McCain for a moderate. He is a social and national conservative, who looks attractive just because he's compared to the incompetent Bush regime.

If you really think of yourself as a Democrat, then don't fall for the hocum!

And don't mistake Democrats for moderates. Remember you live in USA...

 

[Smurf]

And don't mistake Democrats for moderates. Remember you live in USA...

Isn't that the worst thing about the states? They go around bashing Liberals but the truth is they havn't had anyone in office even close to being liberal in over a century.

 

[EL]

Isn't that the worst thing about the states? They go around bashing Liberals but the truth is they havn't had anyone in office even close to being liberal in over a century.

Don't they know that?

 

[Smurf]

Don't they know that?

Pfft, no. Havn't you seen the studies? Most Americans don't even know that there is any world at all outside of the US. As far as they're concerned what's "left" to them is left absolutely. Vice versa.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh please, we have more people standing in line at McDonalds than both of your country's populations combined. This is a huge place with political views from every culture found on the planet.

 

[Smurf]

Oh I'm sure they exist... just not in any significant quantities.

I'm not saying it's unique to the USA, although I would suggest that the USA is among the worst. Canada, especially the praries are just as bad as many parts of the states. Getting worse too.

 

[loseyourname]

Isn't that the worst thing about the states? They go around bashing Liberals but the truth is they havn't had anyone in office even close to being liberal in over a century.

You act as if there exists some absolute standard as to what constitutes a "liberal." The sprectrum is different for each country. Are you really that dense about the usage of language, or do you honestly think that whether or not somone is liberal is simply a matter of plugging their beliefs into an equation, and no American president in over a century has come up with the answer that falls into the set marked "liberal?"

 

[Smurf]

You act as if there exists some absolute standard as to what constitutes a "liberal." The sprectrum is different for each country. Are you really that dense about the usage of language, or do you honestly think that whether or not somone is liberal is simply a matter of plugging their beliefs into an equation, and no American president in over a century has come up with the answer that falls into the set marked "liberal?"

I was merely pointing out that, on a non-US centered scale, no American president could ever be considered liberal or left-wing.

Edit: Isn't there an absolute standard of "Liberal"? Say... the http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Liberalism" maybe?
Regardless, my post was more about the left-right spectrum than about liberalism since I consider ideologies to be more On or Off. You either are a liberal, or you arn't. There's no "is more/less liberal than.."

 

[loseyourname]

Regardless, my post was more about the left-right spectrum than about liberalism since I consider ideologies to be more On or Off. You either are a liberal, or you arn't. There's no "is more/less liberal than.."

You should be smart enough to know that that isn't the way the term is used in contemporary politics. If we went by the definition of classical liberalism, then Jefferson is the most liberal president we've ever had. In the US, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used to denote people who are either left-leaning or right-leaning, with respect to what constitutes the center for the country, with "center" simply being the average political stance. It is something that changes with time, and it is also something that is a nation-specific definition.