Bush favors torture

  1. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,520
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.

    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?
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. 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 wouldnt 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?
     
  4. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    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'. :rolleyes:

    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 moreso 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.
     
  5. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,520
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    loseyourname 3,632
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  7. 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!

    007 level :rofl:
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2005
  8. This tops it, you guys are freakin fanatics.
     
  9. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    No, just vehemently opposed to cruel and inhuman punishment and torture.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. Gokul43201

    Gokul43201 11,141
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Okay, that makes them better than Saddam. Hooray !
     
  12. About who was the biggest mass murderer, Adolf was a mere local gang leader compared to Joseph
     
  13. Odd. I never thought Bush was into SM. :yuck:
     
  14. 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.

    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.

    o:)
     
  15. BobG

    BobG 2,346
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  16. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    McCain Rules!

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

    I don't necessarily agree with all of McCain's positions, but I'd love to psych out the Bush administration. :rofl: Muahhahahaaaaa!
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2005
  17. edward

    edward 1,003
    Gold Member

    A slight hint of torture here

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

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2005
  18. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,520
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...,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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2005
  19. loseyourname

    loseyourname 3,632
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Well, the man is done at this point. Even Ann Coulter turned on him last night on Bill Maher's show.
     
  20. Gokul43201

    Gokul43201 11,141
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?