Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on November 03, 2005, 11:42:55 AM
-
Hi Guys,
By now you've all read the statements from a couple of leaders in the Palestinian Authority asserting that George Bush told them that God had personally instructed him to attack Al Qaeda and Iraq. If one is to believe this, then George Bush would have to be a wildly Charismatic or Pentecostal Evangelical.
This however clashes with his own statement of faith, which shows him to be a fairly run-of-the-mill moderate evangelical, who is still a member of a moderate to liberal denomination, the United Methodist Church. In D.C. he attends a liberal Episcopal Church ( St. John's (http://www.stjohns-dc.org/) ) an experience that would drive someone very theologically conservative, (let alone pentecostal) round the bend.
In any event, this isn't new, but I thought it might be worth posting. I just get tired of hearing about how the President is a wild-eyed Charismatic evangelical, when all the evidence is he's a fairly traditional 1950's style American Christian.
George Bush's Statement of Faith (http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?255)
- SEAGOON
-
Thanks for posting Seagoon. I read the whole thing.
In my mind it is very hard to reconcile his statement of faith with his behavior - his mocking of death row inmate Carla Faye Tucker's plea for life before executing her, his vulgar antics before cameras which he apparently thought were not recording, his economic policies which harm the poor and reward the rich, and most incredibly, his support for the torture of prisoners of war (where is his avowed respect for Life?).
I'm sure we could go back and forth on this, but in my opinion these are not the actions of someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
-
It's unwise to apply godlike standards of perfection to beings as imperfect as humans, to do so will immediately remove 99% of adherents to all faiths.
Just because someone chooses not to love their neighbor, for example, does not disqualify them from being christian, the concept of moral redemption and improvement is a core part of the faith.
-
Originally posted by oboe
his support for the torture of prisoners of war (where is his avowed respect for Life?).
.
thats a very boad statement, you need to define "torture" also captured terrorists that deliberately kill women and children are not POW's.
if you want to be protected by the rules of war you better fight by the rules of war.
-
I'm curious about this part:
By Anonymous
-
and most incredibly, his support for the torture of prisoners of war
====
We just had a high level AQ guy walk off base. Sounds pretty tortuous to me. Considering to horrific dog leash tortures, the unhumane nekkid triangle tortures....the disrespectful cute babes dirty underwear rapped around your head tortures....the barking dogs make you pee your pants tortures.......yes, the United States is truly a horrific and inhumane member of the geneva convention....you know, the same geneva convention with AQ as a member, the same AQ that slices off peoples heads while those people have their hands tied behind their back and are fully alive and absolutely terrorized as they are being murdered, slowly and with the apparant pleasure of there murderers. The same AQ that uses suicide murderers to kill innocents with intention and without remorse. Flying 767s full of innocents into high rise buildings full of innocents.
Im surprised some of you arent fighting for AQ, wait...........
-
Originally posted by john9001
thats a very boad statement, you need to define "torture" also captured terrorists that deliberately kill women and children are not POW's.
if you want to be protected by the rules of war you better fight by the rules of war.
I'm purposefully being broad here - technicalities and hair-splitting definitions which serve to separate POWs from enemy combatants from detainees is part of the problem, I think.
The McCain amendment simply directs US captors to follow interrogation standards set forth in the Army Field Manual and bars "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody. Bush has threatened to veto the bill because this amendment is attached.
How twisted and perverse are our morals becoming? In any other age wouldn't this be a slam-dunk amendment? Or are we now stooping down toward the terrorist's level?
-
What is more moraly wrong.
Torturing a terrorist and getting info tha saves hundred or thousands of lives (maybe more if we take into account a nuke could be used at some point)
Or not torturing him and then watching hundreds or thousands of Americans die?
What will those families think after their loved ones die because we had to be nice to dirt bag terrorsit?
I am not saying would should, just asking. It is an interesting issue, I also dont consider putting someone under mental distress or doing things that "take away their dignity" a problem.
I have had my dignity taken by a local police officer when he pulled me out of my car and read me the riot act on a very busy street in my neighborhood. I lived.
-
Yeager, I accept that my statement was provocative, maybe to the point of being unfair. "Torture" was probably not the best word to use there.
The incidents you described I would characterize as degrading treatment, but not torture.
The AQ operative 'walking off' base indicates a different kind of problem - simple competence in keeping a prisoner in captured status. Not sure it is related in any way to McCain's amendment.
I realize how abhorrent and monstrous the actions of the terrorists were (are). But I think it would be a real tragedy if we can't restrain ourselves from being no better then them. We're Americans, dammit. We are supposed to be the good guys.
PS for GTORA2:
I think there may be a misunderstanding about what is in the Army Field Manual regarding interrogation and treatment of prisoners. I wouldn't be surprised if it describes accepted interrogation techniques for putting prisoners under mental duress. I am pretty sure its not all about being nice to prisoners and treating them as VIPs.
-
Shouldn't the good guys put saving the lives of our people above all else?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What is more moraly wrong.
Torturing a terrorist and getting info tha saves hundred or thousands of lives (maybe more if we take into account a nuke could be used at some point)
What if it create thousand of future terrorists ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
What if it create thousand of future terrorists ?
Now that is the question.
If it does then we are not doing it secrectly enough. :D
They allready hate us, isn't just about anything we do going to cause more?
-
It depends if you view morals as black & white or shades of grey (moral relativism).
If you follow black & white (absolute) morality, then the very simple golden rule applies. Do unto others.
If you follow moral relativism, then you can apply an equivelent to fuzzy logic to it. Examples.. the golden rule would be moral (1.0), while the actions at Abu Ghraib would be slightly immoral (0.7), and the actions of terrorists chopping off heads would be very immoral (0.1).
The inherrent problem with moral relativism, which it seems some of us are very keen to use, is that it literally is relative. Other people are fighting for what they firmly believe is right and a very different culture which doesn't apply christian standards.
-
Originally posted by indy007
It depends if you view morals as black & white or shades of grey (moral relativism).
If you follow black & white (absolute) morality, then the very simple golden rule applies. Do unto others.
If you follow moral relativism, then you can apply an equivelent to fuzzy logic to it. Examples.. the golden rule would be moral (1.0), while the actions at Abu Ghraib would be slightly immoral (0.7), and the actions of terrorists chopping off heads would be very immoral (0.1).
The inherrent problem with moral relativism, which it seems some of us are very keen to use, is that it literally is relative. Other people are fighting for what they firmly believe is right and a very different culture which doesn't apply christian standards.
Good point, but the other side already does not play by the rules, so in a sense if we torture a few of them, we are doing to them what they do to others.
Terrorists don't play by the rules, the geneva conventions mean nothing to them. Fighting an enemy who does not follow the rules of war, while you try seems like trying to play one armed baseball agaist a team that that has both arms and still cheats.
They do not respect us for playing nice.
-
Hi Sandy,
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm curious about this part:
Thats a formatting error on the part of the website. They generally carry articles by Ministers that follow a format of Title, Author at the top of the page and then By Author at the Bottom. Don't know why, but you can check the other pages. If there is no Author line at the top of an article then I believe the default for their template is "Anonymous".
The excerpt itself is actually from Bush's book "A Charge to Keep" - verification, including, chapter and page info can be found here:
Truth or Fiction Confirmation Link (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/georgewbush.htm)
- SEAGOON
-
Exactly. That's why I don't feel we should be applying our own morals to the problem. It's not an effective way to deal with an insurgency. How do you win the support of a populace who's morals are based off something completely alien to your own culture? You can't exactly pick up the bad guys, feed them a few kabobs (okay maybe not kabobs... but I love persian food), and send them on their way. The locals won't respect you. At the same time you can't hook up a trickle charger to their testicles because you lose support with your own people.
Very delicate line to walk. I don't think we're doing too badly at it right now though. The bigger part of the equation, available troops per square mile, is in the process of being solved with the new Iraqi divisions being trained. As more come available and deal with insurgents in their own fashion, dictated by their customs/culture/morals, the pressure will lessen on our troops and moral dilemmas.
-
Yeah good point. We could go the other way and rule with an iron fist.
Take a page from how the Commies controlled people. Course that would never fly with most people here, (it would prolly work though)
But we have drifted into Iraq, and I was thinking more Alqueda When talking torture.
Say you get a tip the terrorsit are plotting something, and we pic a guy up traveling with info in Afganistan, the stuff he is packing hints at a nuke inside the US borders.
Do we play nice and hope he spills it and risk American lives or do we hook hits nuts to a battery charger and make him talk?
-
Hi Oboe,
Originally posted by oboe
Thanks for posting Seagoon. I read the whole thing.
In my mind it is very hard to reconcile his statement of faith with his behavior - his mocking of death row inmate Carla Faye Tucker's plea for life before executing her, his vulgar antics before cameras which he apparently thought were not recording, his economic policies which harm the poor and reward the rich, and most incredibly, his support for the torture of prisoners of war (where is his avowed respect for Life?).
I'm sure we could go back and forth on this, but in my opinion these are not the actions of someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
You're welcome.
I am not even going to begin to argue that George Bush isn't capable of being callous or profane, or that under pressure he can be very thin skinned, or that he doesn't have what some have referred to as a "Texas Temper" which he for the most part keeps under raps. As far as the authenticity of Bush's faith is concerned, i.e. if he is really regenerate or just a traditionalist, I don't know. Ultimately that is known only to George and God, and I've never even interviewed him on spiritual matters. All I was trying to make clear is that Bush is not the full blown "holy roller" that his opponents make him out to be, and I say that as a card carrying Christian fanatic.
But regarding economic policies. Oboe, I'm sure you are probably aware that George Bush has expanded every single poor-oriented entitlement program in the Federal lexicon. He has in fact grown them more than his predecessor Bill Clinton, and it could be argued that Clinton actually did more to cut welfare than George Bush.
Also, please don't confuse socialism with Christianity. Christianity teaches the need for private charity, and this is reflected in the fact that as a group, Evangelicals give more donations to charity than any other. Christianity does not however mandate tax sponsored government handouts to the poor. In fact, not only is that concept not found in the bible, it undercuts the entire thrust for service and giving of yourself and not just in $, but in terms of time and sacrifice. Both scripture and personal experience have taught me it is far too easy to be content that "you gave at the IRS" when it comes to the poor, and far more difficult to actually go and help them yourself. Real charity is not seen simply in picking the pockets of those wealthier than you are, and giving the proceeds to those less who are less wealthy. Also, please be aware that with many individuals, a handout is the last thing they need, and that it will do them far more harm than good. This too I have seen from experience.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Yeah good point. We could go the other way and rule with an iron fist.
Take a page from how the Commies controlled people. Course that would never fly with most people here, (it would prolly work though)
But we have drifted into Iraq, and I was thinking more Alqueda When talking torture.
Say you get a tip the terrorsit are plotting something, and we pic a guy up traveling with info in Afganistan, the stuff he is packing hints at a nuke inside the US borders.
Do we play nice and hope he spills it and risk American lives or do we hook hits nuts to a battery charger and make him talk?
Oh I thought you meant the Abu Ghraib stuff. Assuming you're talking about the EU delcaring it's inquiry now... maybe & maybe not. Alot of torture techniques simply aren't effective. Sleep dep makes people confused, losing reliability. Water torture.. mythbusters debunked that. Pain exposure.. people will say anything to make you stop. There's no way to verify the truth.
Back to that golden rule. Do unto others. Morally, I don't have a problem with it. They chop off heads like it's going out of style, and if free peoples lives are on the line, do what you have to do. That said, logically, I have a problem with it, because it is not, and never has been a reliable means of obtaining information. Interrogation is an art form, and torture doesn't get the job done. Plus, when you're caught doing it, everybody jumps at the chance to take a giant crap on you. The risk/benefit just doesn't add up in favor of it.
-
Here is a question I always wondered, if torture does not work, why do they do it?
Why do they say torture can make anyone talk?
If you have some info, but need more can't you use the info you have to tell if the guy being tortured is just making it up?
I dint consider much of what went on in Abu Gharab torture personally. I was making a hypothetical argument about direct terrorist against the US.
Nothing going on in Iraq right now is going to affect the US populace much
Al Qaeda type terrorist setting off a nuke here would.
That was the jist of the argument, if you can torture info out of a terrorist and save many US lives is it the right thing to do?
Or is it better to stand on a pile of radioactive corpses of your own people, knowing you did the "right" thing by being better then the bad guy.
-
A famous P51 pilot, upon learning that his next mission over Germany involved straffing civilian targets on the ground was heard to have said after the briefing:
"We had better win this damned thing or we will be in a world of hurt".
I think the above illustrates my position.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Here is a question I always wondered, if torture does not work, why do they do it?
Why do they say torture can make anyone talk?
If you have some info, but need more can't you use the info you have to tell if the guy being tortured is just making it up?
I dint consider much of what went on in Abu Gharab torture personally. I was making a hypothetical argument about direct terrorist against the US.
Couple reasons why you would torture somebody.. you have to look at the psychological profile of the people ordering the torture and the people doing the torture. Torqemada did it to gain power. Saddam did it to stay in power. Caligula did it because he had power. Hitler did it because he had power. Countess Bathory did it because she had power, it gave her a thrill, and she thought by bathing in young girls blood she'd stay young (nope.. didn't work). A VC woman dubbed the Apache mutilated GI's (her trademark was cutting off eyelids) because it made her a damaging psychological weapon, giving her (and her cause) power.
Historically tortue is an instrument of power, not truth. People either break, or they talk. When they talk, they tell you what you want to hear to make it stop. The truth is irrelevant at that point.
Now, if you have facts you can compare to corroborate a story, torture still isn't a good option. A daft interrogator and a healthy dose of sodium pentathol (aka truth serum.. basically a disinhibitor.. like being drunk) will have much better chances at getting you what you want to know, without the mess.
-
What would that be?
Fight to win then gloss over it in the history books?
-
Originally posted by indy007
Historically tortue is an instrument of power, not truth. People either break, or they talk. When they talk, they tell you what you want to hear to make it stop. The truth is irrelevant at that point.
Now, if you have facts you can compare to corroborate a story, torture still isn't a good option. A daft interrogator and a healthy dose of sodium pentathol (aka truth serum.. basically a disinhibitor.. like being drunk) will have much better chances at getting you what you want to know, without the mess.
Ok but there would be SOME truth in their right? (Addressing first paragraph)
On the second, I bet some would consider the use of drugs against the will of the person in the chair a form of torture. (not me) Also is using drugs to interrogate a violation of the Geneva conventions as well? (Not sure been years since I read them).
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Ok but there would be SOME truth in their right? (Addressing first paragraph)
On the second, I bet some would consider the use of drugs against the will of the person in the chair a form of torture. (not me) Also is using drugs to interrogate a violation of the Geneva conventions as well? (Not sure been years since I read them).
There very well could be truth, but it's too difficult to tell. Plus there's more risk of them prematurely expiring, ending that source of information completely.
I don't believe the geneva convention should apply. We're not at war with a nation. We're in a state of ongoing hostilities against an ideology. With that line of thought, there's a precedent we can apply to the use of drugs in interrogation. No cruel & unusual punishment for executions. Instead we do a sanitary death by lethal injection. Therefore it wouldn't be cruel, nor unusual to apply them during interrogations.
...and I just realise how badly we've hijacked this thread. sorry seagoon!
if you wanna discuss it some more, email me, indy007@gmail.com
-
Oh yeah we derailed it something fierce.
Still was an interesting and civil conversation.
I found I aggree with you for the most part, I was mostly playing devils advocate.
Good Stuff Indy!
-
Originally posted by straffo
What if it create thousand of future terrorists ?
They will FIGHT with honour, because they are evil (and dont try to mention that they are doing something wrong... god love them.. if they were doing something wrong, god will tell them)...
God bless them
:rofl
-
This might be right place to ask questions.
I used to hear some rummors, that you can not take public office, if you dont belive in God in US.
Is it BS ?
Is religion mandatory at State run schools ?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
...I'm sure you are probably aware that George Bush has expanded every single poor-oriented entitlement program in the Federal lexicon. He has in fact grown them more than his predecessor Bill Clinton, and it could be argued that Clinton actually did more to cut welfare than George Bush.
- SEAGOON
Hi Seagoon -
I do recall that Clinton oversaw federal welfare reform, but as far as the claim that GW has expanded every single poor-oriented program? The idea of this is completely contrary to what one gleans from the media - the Bush tax cut favored the wealthy and he proposed a billion dollar cut in food stamps. I also read that the recent $50 billion in cuts to pay for Hurricane reconstruction is coming mainly from programs that benefit the poor. I'm sure I read that in the Post just the other day. No offense, but can you provide links to where you got your info?
Firstly, thank you to all generous evangelicals everywhere - its unfortunate that charity is necessary in the first place. I understand your point about how institutionalising charity demeans private giving. There was a famous Catholic bishop in the 1950s, his name escapes me, who spoke eloquently on this very issue-- I saw an old film of him speaking. In fact he thought there was real danger in it. He said when you institutionalize charity, create a bureacracy around it, charity becomes a 9-5 job. What goes missing then is the people who see a need and reach out to fill it, even after the normal working hours of the bureacracy.
Unfortunately, looking at our history, it seems clear to me that we have social programs in the US precisely because voters determined that private charities were insufficient in their scope and/or effects. I don't believe that these programs make us socialists, any more than having public utilities does. I see us as a capitalist society borrowing on some of the strengths of Socialism in an attempt to address some of the weaknesses of Capitalism. Not much more to it than that.
Economic policies go beyond social spending as well - for example, he has done nothing to protect American workers from the loss of jobs due to the growing menace of offshoring. If you were a Reagan fan, do you remember how he stood up to the Japanese auto industry? Japan even ended up building manufacturing plants in the US as a result. Bush has simply been AWOL for the US worker.
-
Originally posted by indy007
...Back to that golden rule. Do unto others. Morally, I don't have a problem with it. They chop off heads like it's going out of style, and if free peoples lives are on the line, do what you have to do. That said, logically, I have a problem with it, because it is not, and never has been a reliable means of obtaining information. Interrogation is an art form, and torture doesn't get the job done. Plus, when you're caught doing it, everybody jumps at the chance to take a giant crap on you. The risk/benefit just doesn't add up in favor of it.
Reading this I can't help but think you are misunderstanding the golden rule. It's not just "Do unto others", it's not even "Do unto others as they do unto you." (That's more like the Old Testament "An eye for an eye").
The Golden Rule is found in Matthew 7:12 I believe:
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
That means treat others as you want them to treat you - not treat them as they are treating you.
-
On the original point, I saw the relevant TV programme just a few nights ago and listened to what the Palestinian leader said and most importantly the tone of his comments. My impression was that GWB didn't say God TOLD him to invade Afghanistan or invade Iraq or help give the Palestinian people a country of their own but that God WANTED him to do all of the above. In effect God was on his side and presumably for the benefit of a Palestinian and a muslim, Bush wanted to emphasise his good faith on the matter of Palestinian autonomy. It is nothing new for any political or military leader to believe God is on their side.
Naturally if I had an anti Bush agenda, as many do. I would deliberately spin the comments to make it seem that Bush is a raving religious maniac.
Plenty did.
But in truth the programme was more subtlely damming of Bush's handling of the Palestinian/Israeli issue even though it was all in good faith. The conclusion of the programme was that Ariel Sharon manipulated the whole situation and duped the Americans into recognising Israel's right to the occupied territories of the West Bank in return for giving up a few settlements in Gaza. God it seems is actually in Sharon's corner.
On the tangental point of torture.
Look, if only terrorists were tortured. Who would complain? The problem is that torture is nearly always applied to all prisoners guilty or not. A hardened fanatic probably won't talk and innocents have nothing to reveal. Torture is as damaging to the person doing it as the prisoner.
Just because someone is suspected and arrested does not mean they are guilty. Any country that applies torture no longer has the right to call itself civilised. It's wrong and counterproductive.
What is going to be the next bad idea? Take Iraqis hostage and shoot them every time an American soldier is killed or make them ride on US military vehicles as human shield? I'll bet someone somewhere has suggested that plan.
:huh
-
Originally posted by lada
They will FIGHT with honour, because they are evil (and dont try to mention that they are doing something wrong... god love them.. if they were doing something wrong, god will tell them)...
God bless them
:rofl
Is this Iranian Moron doing something wrong????
If putting a pair of ladies bloomers on a Terrorists head is torture, I'd love to put an extra large size on this idiot and give him a major wedgie.
Here (http://www.palmpaints.com/link.htm)
-
Originally posted by oboe
That means treat others as you want them to treat you - not treat them as they are treating you.
I understand exactly what it means. Treat people like you want to be treated, regardless of how they treat you. Moral absolutism is a good thing. It's a cornerstone of Christianity. However, in the conversation I was saying we shouldn't be applying judeo-christian morality while attempting to battle a wahabbi islamic problem, which has a very, very different set of morals they make their own decisions by.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
On the tangental point of torture.
Look, if only terrorists were tortured. Who would complain? The problem is that torture is nearly always applied to all prisoners guilty or not. A hardened fanatic probably won't talk and innocents have nothing to reveal. Torture is as damaging to the person doing it as the prisoner.
Just because someone is suspected and arrested does not mean they are guilty. Any country that applies torture no longer has the right to call itself civilised. It's wrong and counterproductive.
What is going to be the next bad idea? Take Iraqis hostage and shoot them every time an American soldier is killed or make them ride on US military vehicles as human shield? I'll bet someone somewhere has suggested that plan.
:huh
What do you define as torture? Was stacking naked humans etc of Abu Ghareb torture in your book?
You ever read a book called the devils gaurd?
-
Originally posted by indy007
I understand exactly what it means. Treat people like you want to be treated, regardless of how they treat you. Moral absolutism is a good thing. It's a cornerstone of Christianity. However, in the conversation I was saying we shouldn't be applying judeo-christian morality while attempting to battle a wahabbi islamic problem, which has a very, very different set of morals they make their own decisions by.
Sorry, my mistake Indy - I must've misread the intent of your post then.
I have to say I think our morals must guide our behavior in all situations. I don't think its much of a morality if we choose to employ it or disregard it depending on the situation. I understand some may disagree with that, but it just doesn't seem right to me.
-
this is quaint. A bunch of guys arguing about torture that know neither modern day technics nor standard army field manual techniques.
Even the word torture has been thrown around way too loosley, I'd say many have been abused at best but peeling fingernails off with pliers isn't really common practice any more.
The best interrogation technique I've been esposed to was a simple shaken up coke can opened up by my nose while restrained on my back. Would I call this torture....heck no.
In addition to say Bush supports torture because he wanted to veto the bill is asnine. You can disagree with how it is written and still not be fore the opposite.
PS thanks for the info goon. I doubt you wanted to have the thread spin this way but it's inevitable.
-
Oh come on Guns! SInce when do you have to know much about something to talk about it?
If that was the case there wouldn't be much conversation about anything!
:D
Still you are right about the Hijack, on the up side, it stayed very civil!;)
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Shouldn't the good guys put saving the lives of our people above all else?
....then what part of the guys makes them "good"?
It isn't black and white. In the short term it might make sense of killing off half of the world population outside the US. You remove half of the people and so one might think, half the threat. Of course you would be all but garaunteeing that the other half would come calling, in one way or another.
What do you define as torture?
Beating someone to death is a good start.
-
Originally posted by lada
This might be right place to ask questions.
I used to hear some rummors, that you can not take public office, if you dont belive in God in US.
Is it BS ?
Is religion mandatory at State run schools ?
Yes.
And eating moslem babies at noon on Ramadan is a requirement for political office.
Now if you'll excuse us, we must return to removing the eyes (with a hot poker) of kidnapped lebanese freedom fighters that most unfortunately (for them) looked upon the bare ankles of a jewess in a GQ magazine.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
....then what part of the guys makes them "good"?
It isn't black and white. In the short term it might make sense of killing off half of the world population outside the US. You remove half of the people and so one might think, half the threat. Of course you would be all but garaunteeing that the other half would come calling, in one way or another.
Beating someone to death is a good start.
Have we beaten any prisoners to death while torturing them?
-
Originally posted by lada
This might be right place to ask questions.
I used to hear some rummors, that you can not take public office, if you dont belive in God in US.
Is it BS ?
Is religion mandatory at State run schools ?
No. There have been many notable atheist politicians. Are you kidding? I just can't think of one.
Mandatory religion in schools? No again. This has never been an issue. I don't know where you're hearing this stuff.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Oh come on Guns! SInce when do you have to know much about something to talk about it?
If that was the case there wouldn't be much conversation about anything!
:D
Still you are right about the Hijack, on the up side, it stayed very civil!;)
It's like this. People throw this torture word around like it's candy nowadays because it hurts Bush....personally I could care less who it hurts except this. To compare the torture that senetor Mcain and many others went through in vietnam to some of the abuse and interrogation that terrorist detainees go through.....Is like comparing the stalin purges to a company layoff.
-
stop torturing me.
oooooh... oooohhhhh... stooooop...
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Have we beaten any prisoners to death while torturing them?
...while torturing them? Are you implying that beating someone to the point of death isn't torture?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Have we beaten any prisoners to death while torturing them?
Hard to say... I hear some of the prisons might be secret. ;)
-
"We just had a high level AQ guy walk off base. Sounds pretty tortuous to me. Considering to horrific dog leash tortures, the unhumane nekkid triangle tortures....the disrespectful cute babes dirty underwear rapped around your head tortures....the barking dogs make you pee your pants tortures.......yes, the United States is truly a horrific and inhumane member of the geneva convention....you know, the same geneva convention with AQ as a member, the same AQ that slices off peoples heads while those people have their hands tied behind their back and are fully alive and absolutely terrorized as they are being murdered, slowly and with the apparant pleasure of there murderers. The same AQ that uses suicide murderers to kill innocents with intention and without remorse. Flying 767s full of innocents into high rise buildings full of innocents.
Im surprised some of you arent fighting for AQ, wait..........."
Dozens of people beaten to death in american custody and yeager thinks its hillarios and anyone that dislikes it is fighting for alquida
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Here (http://www.palmpaints.com/link.htm)
Its not that hard
http://www.shaolin.be/foto/Titel3/Plat/qi-gong-china.jpg
Ahh those bloody commies...
-
Originally posted by Pongo
[B...Dozens of people beaten to death in american custody and yeager thinks its hillarios and anyone that dislikes it is fighting for alquida [/B]
Yeager's insinuation that anyone who disagrees with McCain's anti-torture amendment (for lack of a better name) is fighting for Al Quaeda is about the same as me accusing Bush of supporting torture. It's just exaggeration to drive a point home.
As far as Gun's point that you can disagree with how something is written and not be in favor of the opposite - I understand McCain has said he is not opposed to technical changes in the amendment. So we'll see what comes of that. It did pass as it was with overwhelming majority in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Maybe its similiar to our condemnation of Muslims who don't speak out loudly against the terrorists. Just because they aren't outspoken critics may not mean they support Al Queada.
Guns can you enlighten us as to just what interrogation techniques are outlined in the Army Field Manual?
-
a president and his faith..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/view/
-
Originally posted by oboe
Thanks for posting Seagoon. I read the whole thing.
In my mind it is very hard to reconcile his statement of faith with his behavior - his mocking of death row inmate Carla Faye Tucker's plea for life before executing her, his vulgar antics before cameras which he apparently thought were not recording, his economic policies which harm the poor and reward the rich, and most incredibly, his support for the torture of prisoners of war (where is his avowed respect for Life?).
I'm sure we could go back and forth on this, but in my opinion these are not the actions of someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
TORTURE?????Yeah your right Oboe. The AQ prisoners shouldn't have underwear put on their heads , or be humiliated in anyway. They should just be put before a camera , have some Bull#### political statement read. Then get beheaded and have the video posted on the internet.
As far as Carla Faye Tucker. Since she found Jesus , she should have been turned lose, and sent to live in a nieghborhood of her choice. Forget what that little skank did to other people. Maybe you'd like to have her in your nieghborhood, near your , wife or children? Too bad Ted Bundy wasn't captured and executed in Texas while Bush was Gov. You could whine about that too.:rofl :cry
Just because George Bush made a statement of faith or doesn't mean every vicious killer SOB that gets captured doesn't get whats coming to them. The people you bemoan here just so you can ride the anti bush train, wouldn't think twice about killing you, or yours.
WAKE THE **** UP!
:rofl
-
Originally posted by oboe
Sorry, my mistake Indy - I must've misread the intent of your post then.
I have to say I think our morals must guide our behavior in all situations. I don't think its much of a morality if we choose to employ it or disregard it depending on the situation. I understand some may disagree with that, but it just doesn't seem right to me.
It's not right. It's not supposed to be right by our own morality. It is what it is, unfortunately. Al Queda has set the rules for the conflict. They choose to win at all costs. We can either play by the same rules and be just as terrible, and argueably be much more effective with the gloves off... or we can go along as our own morality dictates, play by our set of rules so we feel good about it... but that didn't work particularly well in Vietnam either.
When the stakes are the existence of a culture, are you willing to pay the price to preserve it or not? Is the price worth it? Those are the important questions.
-
If God be for us, who can be against us?
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/wwi-buckle.jpg)
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Have we beaten any prisoners to death while torturing them?
Nothing like being sent to Egypt for a little rendition...
Tronsky
-
Hi Shifty -
Its getting to be a long thread, but yes, somewhere back there I was called on use of the word "torture" by Yeager, and I agreed it was probably not a good word to use, and that it was unfair.
Here are excerpts of McCain's statement regarding his amendment:
...Let me begin by noting that the Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well, through wars against both regular and irregular foes. The Manual embodies the values Americans have embraced for generations, while preserving the ability of our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from ruthless foes. Never has this been more important than today, in the midst of the war on terror.
To fight terrorism it is obvious that we must obtain intelligence, but we have to ensure that it is reliable and acquired in a way that is humane. To do otherwise not only offends our national morals, but undermines our efforts to protect the nation’s security. Abuse of prisoners harms – not helps – us in the war on terror, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our honorable country in the eyes of millions. Mistreatment of our prisoners also endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the enemy – if not in this war, then in the next.
The Army Field Manual authorizes interrogation techniques that have proven effective in extracting life-saving information from the most hardened enemy prisoners. It also recognizes that torture and cruel treatment are ineffective methods, because they induce prisoners to say what their interrogators want to hear, even if it is not true, while bringing discredit upon the United States....
The amendment I am offering would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in DOD custody....
Mr. President, let me just close by noting that I hold no brief for the prisoners. I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America. We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise, as I have noted, undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world – a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.
I cannot put it any better than that. Here is the
link (http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1595) to the full text of his address. I cannot for the life of me understand how any reasonable American could be opposed to this - unless the opposition originates from a misunderstanding. If that's case I hope this clears it up.
Regarding Carla Faye Tucker and the death penalty - I am not against the death penalty. In fact in many cases I wish it was carried out more swiftly and surely. What I objected strongly to was Bush's public mocking of her request for a stay - complete with a scrunched up face imitating her distress. I found such a display far beneath the dignity of a public official, devoid of the mercy or compassion one might reasonably expect from someone who has committed his heart to Jesus Christ. I didn't say that she should not have been executed. I read Bush's statement about his decision to continue with her execution and I didn't fault him for what he said there - only for the immature, childish and cruel imitation he did of her in response to her request to be spared.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Yeager's insinuation that anyone who disagrees with McCain's anti-torture amendment (for lack of a better name) is fighting for Al Quaeda is about the same as me accusing Bush of supporting torture. It's just exaggeration to drive a point home.
As far as Gun's point that you can disagree with how something is written and not be in favor of the opposite - I understand McCain has said he is not opposed to technical changes in the amendment. So we'll see what comes of that. It did pass as it was with overwhelming majority in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Maybe its similiar to our condemnation of Muslims who don't speak out loudly against the terrorists. Just because they aren't outspoken critics may not mean they support Al Queada.
Guns can you enlighten us as to just what interrogation techniques are outlined in the Army Field Manual?
here's a good place to start http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/
-
i don't care if i'm one of the good guys, i just want to be one of the winners.
war is not a game, it's a fight to the death.
-
Originally posted by oboe
...Let me begin by noting that the Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well, through wars against both regular and irregular foes. The Manual embodies the values Americans have embraced for generations, while preserving the ability of our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from ruthless foes. Never has this been more important than today, in the midst of the war on terror.
To fight terrorism it is obvious that we must obtain intelligence, but we have to ensure that it is reliable and acquired in a way that is humane. To do otherwise not only offends our national morals, but undermines our efforts to protect the nation’s security. Abuse of prisoners harms – not helps – us in the war on terror, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our honorable country in the eyes of millions. Mistreatment of our prisoners also endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the enemy – if not in this war, then in the next.
The Army Field Manual authorizes interrogation techniques that have proven effective in extracting life-saving information from the most hardened enemy prisoners. It also recognizes that torture and cruel treatment are ineffective methods, because they induce prisoners to say what their interrogators want to hear, even if it is not true, while bringing discredit upon the United States....
The amendment I am offering would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in DOD custody....
Mr. President, let me just close by noting that I hold no brief for the prisoners. I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America. We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise, as I have noted, undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world – a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.
As a POW in Vietnam I can't think of anyone more qualified to write on the subject. I've always respected McCain for his service to this country but after reading that, I will most likely vote for him as president if he runs in 08.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
TORTURE?????Yeah your right Oboe. The AQ prisoners shouldn't have underwear put on their heads , or be humiliated in anyway.
If you are implying that that was the worst that happened than you either misinformed or purposely misleading your audience.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
If you are implying that that was the worst that happened than you either misinformed or purposely misleading your audience.
a source or link proves your point much more efficiently.
-
I too have always liked the CainMan but he is not pro gun. He is not quite anti gun but I dont trust him. I will vote for Jeb Bush because I always liked watching the tv series dynasty.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
a source or link proves your point much more efficiently.
"- Manadel Al-Jamadi, who was being held at Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison in which the well-known abuse of prisoners took place. He died on November 4, 2003, of "blunt force injuries complicated by compromised respiration," doctors said. Two CIA personnel, an officer and a contract translator, were present when he died. The agency and Justice Department are investigating."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/22/1085176035220.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"- Manadel Al-Jamadi, who was being held at Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison in which the well-known abuse of prisoners took place. He died on November 4, 2003, of "blunt force injuries complicated by compromised respiration," doctors said. Two CIA personnel, an officer and a contract translator, were present when he died. The agency and Justice Department are investigating."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/22/1085176035220.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true
But I don't see anywere where this is the norm/policy instead of the exception.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
But I don't see anywere where this is the norm/policy instead of the exception.
I didn't said it was or wasn't. I was refuting the people that said or implied that humiliating the prisoners was the worst that happened.
-
The medical findings mean the deaths were linked to the actions of another person; however, that doesn't necessarily mean the deaths were criminal in nature, military officials said today.
A 10th prisoner death, also determined a homicide, already has been resolved. Officials said that in September 2003, a soldier shot and killed a prisoner in Iraq who threw rocks at him. The soldier was punished and dismissed from the Army for using excessive force.
=====
out of tens of thousands of bad nasty prisoners being held in afganistan and Iraq (and all those secret places no one knows about) 10 detainees have died,
and not necessarily due to criminal actions, thrawn is of course the proudest and loudest post euro to point out the horrific failures of anything related to the american effort to fight the war on islamic terror which europe has failed so miserbly to prosecute these past 40+ years....... no doubt adding to the crises which led directly to american involvement post 9/11.
b e a u t i f u l :O
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I didn't said it was or wasn't. I was refuting the people that said or implied that humiliating the prisoners was the worst that happened.
You've never heard of Extraordinary Rendition?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Have we beaten any prisoners to death while torturing them?
reports on War on Terror deaths of those in custody....
Source: LA times
Date: 22 May 2004
List of Detainee Death Inquiries Expanded to 37
The Pentagon's higher figure for Iraq and Afghanistan
includes at least eight unresolved homicide
cases that may have involved assaults.
By John Hendren, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Pentagon officials on Friday increased to 37 the number of detainee deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan that have prompted investigations, including at least eight unresolved homicides that may have involved assaults before or during interrogation.
Earlier this month, defense officials detailed 25 cases of prisoners who died in U.S. Army detention centers. But in an unscheduled briefing at the Pentagon, a senior defense official and a senior Pentagon medical official said the number had risen to 30 cases, including some involving more than one death, for a total of 37 deaths. Thirty-two deaths occurred in Iraq and five in Afghanistan.
Although military officials cautioned that some of the deaths involved justifiable use of force, the rising number of detainee deaths intensified concerns among lawmakers and critics of the American-led occupation of Iraq.
"Time after time, we've said … there are a few bad apples, and every day we're finding out that this apple cart is getting bigger," said Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who was briefed on the cases Friday. "I'm concerned not only about getting to the bottom of this, but also getting to the top of it."
Human rights activists have denounced detention practices.
"It's important that the Pentagon seems to be releasing these figures with some semblance of transparency, but it's difficult to know if we're far — I would even say frighteningly far — from the whole truth," Amnesty International spokeswoman Wende Gozan said.
The senior defense official said the number of known deaths in detention was a small proportion of the 45,000 detainees who have been handled in Iraq alone. He compared the 37 deaths with what he said was a 3.3% death rate in federal and state prisons in the United States.
Photographs and video images of detainees being abused at the Abu Ghraib prison — site of two of the newly disclosed suspected homicides — have drawn international condemnation and prompted more than half a dozen probes of U.S. military detention centers and inquiries in both chambers of Congress.
The latest images were published in Friday's Washington Post.
Of the 37 deaths detailed Friday, investigators found that 15 were due to "natural or undetermined" causes other than homicide, in many cases heart attacks.
Eight deaths were ruled justifiable killings. In those cases, soldiers followed so-called standard rules of engagement and killed detainees either to protect other troops or prevent prisoners from escaping, the senior military medical official said.
Two are wrongful deaths, while as many as nine are homicides still under investigation. The remaining three are in a special category because they occurred outside of any detention facility.
Among the cases is a fatal shooting at southern Iraq's Camp Bucca in April 2003 that the Army ruled justifiable. But a Red Cross team that witnessed the incident at the facility concluded that "at no point" did the prisoner pose a serious threat to guards.
The deaths of the others deemed justifiable homicides all occurred at Abu Ghraib — four in November 2003, one in March 2004 and two in April 2004.
Both of the wrongful deaths were in Iraq.
In a September 2003 incident, a soldier fatally shot a prisoner who was throwing rocks at him at a forward operating base.
He was later downgraded in rank from specialist to private and discharged from the Army, apparently the only soldier to date to be prosecuted for killing a detainee. He was not imprisoned.
The second case, of a CIA contract worker who allegedly killed an Iraqi prisoner at Abu Ghraib in November, was referred to the Justice Department, the official said. As a civilian, the worker could not be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, officials said.
The Justice Department said Friday that it had received another referral from the Defense Department "regarding a civilian contractor in Iraq" and had opened an investigation. Officials would not say if the incident involved a death. It was the first Justice Department criminal investigation sought by the Pentagon.
The CIA has referred at least two other cases to the department.
Of the nine unresolved homicide cases, three occurred in Afghanistan and six in Iraq, including the two at Abu Ghraib.
In one of the cases, a preliminary assessment has found that an Abu Ghraib detainee died of natural causes, but the investigation is continuing.
Among the specifics offered by the Pentagon were details regarding 23 autopsies by military medical examiners. Twelve of the death certificates concluded that the deaths were from natural causes. One Iraqi death was labeled an accident. One other case is pending; defense officials could provide no information about it.
Some of those labeled homicides involved gunshots, but the most common reason was blunt-force injuries. Six died at detention centers throughout Iraq:
On June 6, 2003, Naem Sadoon Hatab was found strangled in an outdoor isolation area at the Whitehorse detention facility in Nasiriya, Iraq, according to his death certificate.
On June 13, Dilar Dababa died of a severe head injury in Iraq.
One Nov. 4, Manadel Jamadi died of blunt-force injuries complicated by "compromised respiration" at Abu Ghraib. The suspected homicide occurred while he was with Navy SEALs and other special operations troops.
On Jan. 9, Abdul Jaleel died of blunt-force injuries and asphyxiation at a prison in Al Asad, Iraq. His case is one of the suspected incidents of homicide still under investigation. Jaleel was found gagged and shackled to a cell door with his hands over his head.
On April 28, Ali Gumaa Fahin died of complications due to multiple gunshot wounds in Baghdad.
On May 12, Maj. Gen. Abid Mowhosh, former commander of Iraq's air defenses, died of asphyxiation due to smothering and chest compression in Qaim, Iraq.
Three detainees were killed in Afghanistan, according to their death certificates.
Most recently, on Nov. 6, Abdul Wahid died of multiple blunt-force injuries — complicated by what examiners suspect was a condition in which toxins are released to the body, sometimes due to a crushing injury or an electrical shock — at a detention center in Helmand province.
Two deaths at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul have been investigated for 17 months. On Dec. 3, 2002, Habib Ullah died of a blood clot caused by a blunt-force injury at Bagram. A week later, an Afghan whose last name was Dilawar died of blunt-force injuries to his lower body that complicated his coronary artery disease at the base outside Kabul, according to the death certificates.
Human rights groups have been pressing for an accounting of the deaths of Ullah and Dilawar.
The senior military official said the investigations have gone on so long because they were "very difficult" and "very complicated."
The three deaths that occurred outside of detention centers since August 2002 include one in which a soldier shot and killed an Afghan who allegedly lunged at his gun, the senior military official said.
In the second, an Iraqi was fatally shot after he allegedly moved menacingly toward a sergeant who was escorting him, he said.
In the third, an Iraqi drowned after he allegedly was forced to jump off a bridge by U.S. troops, officials said, confirming media reports about the fatality for the first time.
Separately, Army officials have closed 14 cases in which detainees were allegedly assaulted, and they are pursuing two assault investigations.
-
OCTOBER 24, 2005
2:50 PM
CONTACT: American Civil Liberties Union
media@aclu.org
U.S. Operatives Killed Detainees During Interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq
CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence Personnel Implicated
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.
“There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable. America must stop putting its head in the sand and deal with the torture scandal that has rocked our military.”
The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and “OGA” (Other Governmental Agency) -- a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.
According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel. The autopsy reports list deaths by “strangulation,” “asphyxiation” and “blunt force injuries.” An overwhelming majority of the so-called “natural deaths” were attributed to “Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.”
While newspapers have recently reported deaths of detainees in CIA custody, today’s documents show that the problem is pervasive, involving Navy Seals and Military Intelligence too.
The records reveal the following facts:
A 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was “undetermined” although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death. Notes say he “struggled/ interrogated/ died sleeping.” Some facts relating to this case have been previously reported. (In April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of “environmental manipulation” as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. Although Lt. Gen. Sanchez later rescinded the September 2003 techniques, he authorized “changes in environmental quality” in October 2003.)
An Iraqi detainee (also described as a white male) died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated by “OGA.” He was standing, shackled to the top of a door frame with a gag in his mouth at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries. Notes summarizing the autopsies record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA, gagged in standing restraint.” (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Jaleel.)
A detainee was smothered to death during an interrogation by Military Intelligence on November 26, 2003, in Al Qaim, Iraq. A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of General Mowhoush, lists “asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression” as the cause of death and cites bruises from the impact with a blunt object. New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by MI, died during interrogation.”
A detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison, captured by Navy Seal Team number seven, died on November 4, 2003, during an interrogation by Navy Seals and “OGA.” A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of Manadel Al Jamadi, shows that the cause of his death was “blunt force injury complicated by compromised respiration.” New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA and NSWT died during interrogation.”
An Afghan civilian died from “multiple blunt force injuries to head, torso and extremities” on November 6, 2003, at a Forward Operating Base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Wahid.)
A 52-year-old male Iraqi was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility on June 6, 2003, in Nasiriyah, Iraq. His autopsy also revealed bone and rib fractures, and multiple bruises on his body. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Nagm Sadoon Hatab.)
The ACLU has previously released autopsy reports for two detainees who were tortured by U.S. forces in Bagram, Afghanistan, believed to be Mullah Habibullah and an Afghan man known as Dilawar.
“These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations,” said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. “The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.”
The documents were released by the Department of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.
As part of the FOIA lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge recently ordered the Defense Department to turn over photographs and videotapes depicting the abuse of prisoners held by the United States at Abu Ghraib. That decision has been stayed until October 26. The government has not yet indicated whether it is going to appeal the court's decision.
The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Singh, Jameel Jaffer, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
To date, more than 77,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia.
The documents released today are available online at http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/
-
Still sorting through the bones from boxes in the Ministary of Justice in Iraq...guess these bones of Brothers, Sons, Husbands didn't matter.
Guess the Fathers, Wives, Daughters and Sons didn't matter.
What is the price of Life nowadays?
Mac
-
contorting apologists bring in the clowns.
-
Ohhh everyone loves a Circus... I like the "Dog and Pony" show the most.
Bring in the Clowns....
Mac
-
all you need is just a mirror.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
You've never heard of Extraordinary Rendition?
Tronsky
I never heard of the term before now, but I am familiar with the practice.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
What is the price of Life nowadays?
According to Sally Struthers, it's just pennies per day!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I never heard of the term before now, but I am familiar with the practice.
It's a wonderful thing...a good way of almost keeping your hands clean..
Tronsky
-
Of the 37 deaths detailed Friday, investigators found that 15 were due to "natural or undetermined" causes other than homicide, in many cases heart attacks.
Eight deaths were ruled justifiable killings. In those cases, soldiers followed so-called standard rules of engagement and killed detainees either to protect other troops or prevent prisoners from escaping, the senior military medical official said.
Two are wrongful deaths, while as many as nine are homicides still under investigation. The remaining three are in a special category because they occurred outside of any detention facility.
so nine total......wow pol pot, stalin, and hitler must be turning in their graves. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Yeah good point. We could go the other way and rule with an iron fist.
Take a page from how the Commies controlled people. Course that would never fly with most people here, (it would prolly work though)
But we have drifted into Iraq, and I was thinking more Alqueda When talking torture.
Say you get a tip the terrorsit are plotting something, and we pic a guy up traveling with info in Afganistan, the stuff he is packing hints at a nuke inside the US borders.
Do we play nice and hope he spills it and risk American lives or do we hook hits nuts to a battery charger and make him talk?
How about if the guy is innocent and we torture him anyway?
Where are our morals and ethics then?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
so nine total......wow pol pot, stalin, and hitler must be turning in their graves. :rolleyes:
I don't think our founding fathers are resting well.
-
When speaking about torturing 'terrorists' where do you pull the line?
What defines a terrorist?
Is it required for the said person to be found guilty to a terrorist act of some sort or is it enough to just oppose US military forces somewhere around the world?
What I'm getting here is that are standard combatants of certain areas automatically treated as terrorists even if they were fighting against an occupying force in their country i.e. having nothing to do with ideals of terrorism.
I believe they are. And that's where your logic also fails.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I don't think our founding fathers are resting well.
well that's assuming these guys were tortured in the first place. Abused probably, but tortured.......
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
When speaking about torturing 'terrorists' where do you pull the line?
What defines a terrorist?
Is it required for the said person to be found guilty to a terrorist act of some sort or is it enough to just oppose US military forces somewhere around the world?
What I'm getting here is that are standard combatants of certain areas automatically treated as terrorists even if they were fighting against an occupying force in their country i.e. having nothing to do with ideals of terrorism.
I believe they are. And that's where your logic also fails.
What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?
That's a powerful ideal that seperates the civilized from the others.
You *have* to believe that they are all terrorists to justify their *treatment*.
That's where your thinking fails.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well that's assuming these guys were tortured in the first place. Abused probably, but tortured.......
I take it you're assuming they were not tortured.
Abusing prisoners is a form of torture.
*Abusing* people under certain conditions can lead to innocent people agreeing to anything.
Everyone has a limit before they lose it.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I take it you're assuming they were not tortured.
Abusing prisoners is a form of torture.
*Abusing* people under certain conditions can lead to innocent people agreeing to anything.
Everyone has a limit before they lose it.
I think people are innocent until proven guilty. But, interrogation is a nesecary evil on a battlefield. I think this is all blown out of proportion in order to hurt president bush.....wich it does, and every other soldier in the field doing his job.
I do not see any evidence of a systematic policy concerning torture.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think people are innocent until proven guilty. But, interrogation is a nesecary evil on a battlefield. I think this is all blown out of proportion in order to hurt president bush.....wich it does, and every other soldier in the field doing his job.
I do not see any evidence of a systematic policy concerning torture.
I take it you're saying it is okay to "abuse" the innocent under certain conditions?
-
Sorry SaburoS I didn't mean that as a reply to your post.. I mean the logic of those who think it's ok to abuse prisoners fails. It fails if the conditions of fair trial are not met.
War makes things so difficult. So if one would say that a car bombing in iraq is terrorism if it kills 20 civillians on site.
What if that car bomb was primarily targeted at a US tank for example?
How does that differ from the guided bomb droped from an F16 to a AAA position sitting on top of an appartment building? Both are collateral damage. Both are planned, both know well that civillians will die.
So when you look at it from the side that suffers, they make no difference.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I take it you're saying it is okay to "abuse" the innocent under certain conditions?
No I don't condone that either but again I don't see a wide spread systematic policy that promotes it here.
Then again I trust the operators out in the field to make the call way before I trust a politician in washington to do so.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Sorry SaburoS I didn't mean that as a reply to your post.. I mean the logic of those who think it's ok to abuse prisoners fails. It fails if the conditions of fair trial are not met.
War makes things so difficult. So if one would say that a car bombing in iraq is terrorism if it kills 20 civillians on site.
What if that car bomb was primarily targeted at a US tank for example?
How does that differ from the guided bomb droped from an F16 to a AAA position sitting on top of an appartment building? Both are collateral damage. Both are planned, both know well that civillians will die.
So when you look at it from the side that suffers, they make no difference.
There is a huge difference between targeting civilians with a car bomb and targeting a legitimate military targets were civilians might be colateral damage. One is intended to cause as much death and destruction as possible while the later makes vast efforts to reduce civlian casualties.
-
That is true gunslinger. But let's say a IED is placed next to a busy road and a tank passes by. Explosion happens and 3-4 civillian cars are destroyed in the process.
How does that differ from doing the same from a F-117? Furthermore so, if Iraqi rebels managed to get a Mig-29 up and deliver the payload through air to the same road, would it be any different?
We all remember the images from Kosovo where a railroad bridge was bombed just as a passenger train went over it. The half destroyed train was then hit again by a guided bomb. Did Nato commit an act of terror there? Surely they knew after the initial impact that a train got caught in between.
Still they hit it again.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
That is true gunslinger. But let's say a IED is placed next to a busy road and a tank passes by. Explosion happens and 3-4 civillian cars are destroyed in the process.
How does that differ from doing the same from a F-117? Furthermore so, if Iraqi rebels managed to get a Mig-29 up and deliver the payload through air to the same road, would it be any different?
We all remember the images from Kosovo where a railroad bridge was bombed just as a passenger train went over it. The half destroyed train was then hit again by a guided bomb. Did Nato commit an act of terror there? Surely they knew after the initial impact that a train got caught in between.
Still they hit it again.
yes as far as I've seen with the battle/news reports the people we are fighting want to cause as much damage and death as possible were as I know the US military, especially the air assets, go to great pains to minimize colateral damage.
Mostly I'd have to say it is a matter of intent. I honestly beleive the US military cares about who get's killed were as the opfor does not.
But when it is all said and done collateral damage is mostly woman children and civilians killed wich in any case is tragic.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Mostly I'd have to say it is a matter of intent. I honestly beleive the US military cares about who get's killed were as the opfor does not.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Bear with me, I'm thinking this through as I type.
Habib has plants and IED and triggers it when a hummer goes by, some civilians die in the resulting explosion. They are collateral casualties in his attack on a valid military target. So, no different than if an F-15 blows up a valid target and kills some civilians in the process.
Remember, your insurgent may vary.
Your Sunni insurgent that targets the coallition's military forces and Iraqi National Guard forces, isn't you Al Qaeda terrorist that blows up anyone to try and breed chaos in Iraq.
I'm not sure this whole "targeting", "caring" and "intent" thing pays off anyway. Dead civilians are dead civilians. In a massive overstatement to make my point...Party A launches a nuke at a city where there is known to be a valid military target of Party B. Tens of thousands of civilians die.
Party A: "Well, we were targeting a valid military target."
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I do not see any evidence of a systematic policy concerning torture.
Originally posted by -tronski-
You've never heard of Extraordinary Rendition?
Tronsky
Extraordinary Rendition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition)
Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Bush-set-ball-rolling-for-overseas-torture/2005/03/06/1110044260965.html?oneclick=true)
The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6)
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18709-2005Mar8.html)
Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,,1568671,00.html)
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
You've never heard of Extraordinary Rendition?
Tronsky
It appears that it came into presidential approval during Clinton's term...nice guy
-
No apologies for Clinton here. But this excerpt from the New Yorker article, linked above:
Rendition was originally carried out on a limited basis, but after September 11th, when President Bush declared a global war on terrorism, the program expanded beyond recognition—becoming, according to a former C.I.A. official, “an abomination.” What began as a program aimed at a small, discrete set of suspects—people against whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrants—came to include a wide and ill-defined population that the Administration terms “illegal enemy combatants.” Many of them have never been publicly charged with any crime.
Sadly, I don't think the McCain amendment addresses the issue of outsourcing torture--I believe it merely covers DoD personnel. I suppose that is where Bush finds his legal footing when he declares that "we" do not torture. According to the New Yorker, however, rendition is already illegal by a 1998 US law. This should be a much bigger issue than Scootergate, IMO.