Bush and Republicans Endorse Torture

[Ant]

To make this issue entirely clear.  If you support the current Administration you support and condone torture.  There is no way to run from it this time around.  Since Bush chose to nominate Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General there have been numerous arguments made by so-called conservatives arguing for the necessity of torture.  Only they don't call it that, instead they make claims like the liberals are trying make us lose the war on terror, they are trying to embarass our troups, and so on.  But let's be clear about what this administration supports and condones. 


George Bush willingly made the choice to nominate Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General knowing full-well that Gonzales has on record said:

a) The Geneva Conventions are 'quaint' and 'obsolete' do not apply to the war on terror.  But let me offer a little more background.  After it became official Administration policy that the Geneva Accords do not apply to the War on Terror, Colin Powell asked Bush to reconsider this decision.  Alberto Gonzales responded directly to president Bush with this memo: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/   in it he argued that Powell was wrong to suggest the Geneva Accords apply to the War on Terror.  This position was accepted by the Administration, and directly by Bush.  Yet, when Abu Graib fotos leaked Bush claimed he had no clue.

b) According to Alberto Gonzales an act against a detainee can only be considered an act of torture IF it is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

When republicans vote to support Gonzales be very clear with yourself.  If you support this administration, you support torture.  (unless of course you also foolishly subscribe to the narrow definition of torture A.G. has put forth)

[Thirteen]

To make this issue entirely clear.  If you support the current Administration you support and condone torture.  There is no way to run from it this time around.  Since Bush chose to nominate Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General there have been numerous arguments made by so-called conservatives arguing for the necessity of torture.  Only they don't call it that, instead they make claims like the liberals are trying make us lose the war on terror, they are trying to embarass our troups, and so on.  But let's be clear about what this administration supports and condones. 


George Bush willingly made the choice to nominate Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General knowing full-well that Gonzales has on record said:

a) The Geneva Conventions are 'quaint' and 'obsolete' do not apply to the war on terror.  But let me offer a little more background.  After it became official Administration policy that the Geneva Accords do not apply to the War on Terror, Colin Powell asked Bush to reconsider this decision.  Alberto Gonzales responded directly to president Bush with this memo: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/   in it he argued that Powell was wrong to suggest the Geneva Accords apply to the War on Terror.  This position was accepted by the Administration, and directly by Bush.  Yet, when Abu Graib fotos leaked Bush claimed he had no clue.

b) According to Alberto Gonzales an act against a detainee can only be considered an act of torture IF it is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

When republicans vote to support Gonzales be very clear with yourself.  If you support this administration, you support torture.  (unless of course you also foolishly subscribe to the narrow definition of torture A.G. has put forth)

a) is true because guess what? if i were t be captured in Iraq...do you think they would look on the back of my ID card, where it states what Geneva Convention code i fall under, and treat me accordingly? no they wouldn't...plus those rules apply to a government's military...which country's military do terrorists belong to?

b) in actuality those are the definitions of torture that have been used for decades...we were shown each of those abu gharib pictures and were told what was wrong with each of them

the picture i am reminded of most is the picture of the naked hooded man standing on a box with his arms outstretched and electrodes connected to each hand... the old policies that were in effect for as long as anyone can remember stated the only thing wrong with that picture were the electrodes because they can cause serious bodily harm...

so why did it take your side of the political spectrum this long to argue against torture when theese rules have been in effect for decades?

[Ant]

please show me some evidence that these rules have been in effect for decades?

[Thirteen]

please show me some evidence that these rules have been in effect for decades?

i can't seem to find any off hand... all i could find are pages about prisoner handling....rules regarding interrogation could possibly be classified... but to think that these rules came into effect while bush is president
 even clinton, george bush before him and reagan is pretty silly on your part

i know i am right bout the geneva convention thing...oh and bush said that the taliban and al qaeda members will be treated according to the Geneva convention even though he didn't have to do that...but the al qaeda thing isn't all true

[Thirteen]

i just did another search and found Interrogation rules fall under the Rules Of Engagement and most are considered classified...that would explain why in all these news posts they don't refer you to some publication

[Ant]

i just did another search and found Interrogation rules fall under the Rules Of Engagement and most are considered classified...that would explain why in all these news posts they don't refer you to some publication

fine, then show me the news posts you are referring to or wherever it is you learned that this definition has been used for decades and these practices have always been acceptable.

[Thirteen]

i just did another search and found Interrogation rules fall under the Rules Of Engagement and most are considered classified...that would explain why in all these news posts they don't refer you to some publication

fine, then show me the news posts you are referring to or wherever it is you learned that this definition has been used for decades and these practices have always been acceptable.

well since they are classified, i can't just sit here at home and find out the date, so you'll have to wait for that... as for the uses....have you ever heard of prisoner incidents until this year? well that's because technology and some retards teamed up to make america look stupid... ask any vietnam vet and they'll tell you the things that were done to the VC without any repercussions

[Ant]

i just did another search and found Interrogation rules fall under the Rules Of Engagement and most are considered classified...that would explain why in all these news posts they don't refer you to some publication

fine, then show me the news posts you are referring to or wherever it is you learned that this definition has been used for decades and these practices have always been acceptable.

well since they are classified, i can't just sit here at home and find out the date, so you'll have to wait for that... as for the uses....have you ever heard of prisoner incidents until this year? well that's because technology and some retards teamed up to make america look stupid... ask any vietnam vet and they'll tell you the things that were done to the VC without any repercussions

So if they are classified and you can't produce them how do you know about them?  You stated as a fact that the gonzales definition for torture has been american policy for decades now, but you have nothing to back it up.   Also, while unfortunate things have have happened in vietnam these things were not legal then, and they are not legal now.  Remember, ironically it was John Kerry who stood in front of the U.S. senate and brought these issues to light.  The republican side spent years calling him a traitor and claiming he lied to the American poeple.  The Swift Boats ran an ad about it in 2004.  Now today you tell me that if you ask anyone who was in vietnam they can tell you torture occured there as well.  I don't doubt that some extremely inhumane acts occured there as well, but these types of acts were not legal then, and are not legal now.  Unfortunately, the republicans took the same side then as they do now.  They said Kerry was a traitor, he was lying and slandering our troops.. you called the people who shot these photos 'retards' and claimed they were trying to embarass America.

So anyways, rather than arguing with me about it anymore just state your position clearly.  I am inclined to believe that you support and/or condone the use of torture.  If that is the case then simply say so.

[Thirteen]

i just did another search and found Interrogation rules fall under the Rules Of Engagement and most are considered classified...that would explain why in all these news posts they don't refer you to some publication

fine, then show me the news posts you are referring to or wherever it is you learned that this definition has been used for decades and these practices have always been acceptable.

well since they are classified, i can't just sit here at home and find out the date, so you'll have to wait for that... as for the uses....have you ever heard of prisoner incidents until this year? well that's because technology and some retards teamed up to make america look stupid... ask any vietnam vet and they'll tell you the things that were done to the VC without any repercussions

So if they are classified and you can't produce them how do you know about them?  You stated as a fact that the gonzales definition for torture has been american policy for decades now, but you have nothing to back it up.   Also, while unfortunate things have have happened in vietnam these things were not legal then, and they are not legal now.  Remember, ironically it was John Kerry who stood in front of the U.S. senate and brought these issues to light.  The republican side spent years calling him a traitor and claiming he lied to the American poeple.  The Swift Boats ran an ad about it in 2004.  Now today you tell me that if you ask anyone who was in vietnam they can tell you torture occured there as well.  I don't doubt that some extremely inhumane acts occured there as well, but these types of acts were not legal then, and are not legal now.  Unfortunately, the republicans took the same side then as they do now.  They said Kerry was a traitor, he was lying and slandering our troops.. you called the people who shot these photos 'retards' and claimed they were trying to embarass America.

So anyways, rather than arguing with me about it anymore just state your position clearly.  I am inclined to believe that you support and/or condone the use of torture.  If that is the case then simply say so.

i carry a Top Secret clearance in the US government and i'm also apart of a Naval Combat Unit...that's how i know about certain things...

the means of interrogation....food and sleep deprivation, stress positions among other things have been practiced for years, they even use these to a small degree in boot camp (except food deprivation) the fact that people have taken these acts overboard for years is proof enough that they've existed for a long time...i don't understand how you think that simple tactics like those three listed above just came to existence recently

finally the most recent poeple that have been tried for torture are retards because they commited crime and took pictures while doing it leading to their arrest and conviction....you don't get any more retarded than that. not only did they know what they were doing was wrong, the recoded it for all of history

[Ant]

how is torture a crime and legal at the same time? do you support the use of cruel, inhuman, and degtading acts as a means of coercion?  just say so if you do.

[Thirteen]

just like it's legal for me to have 4 beers and drive my car but at 6-7 beers i might be breaking the law....when done in moderation and within guidelines it's fair

i don't see anything wrong with sleep and food deprivation and stress positions to interrogate prisoners....tying them up to electrodes sicking dogs or taking food deprivation too far is where i draw the line

[Don Rizzle]

personally i don't really disagree with torture in the case of national security but for no other reason but there should be limits on how far to go. however since we signed up to these agreements against torture we should abide by them.

[Ant]

just like it's legal for me to have 4 beers and drive my car but at 6-7 beers i might be breaking the law....when done in moderation and within guidelines it's fair

i don't see anything wrong with sleep and food deprivation and stress positions to interrogate prisoners....tying them up to electrodes sicking dogs or taking food deprivation too far is where i draw the line

I think you need to re-read my initial post then because these people aren't merely condoning the use of sleep deprivation. We were sodomizing, burning, and beating people (you can see previous stories I've cited for examples).  A.G. wrote to the president that the Geneva Accords were 'obsolete' and only Colin Powell disagreed. According to A.G. its entirely legal to treat detainees in a "cruel, inhumane, and degrading" manner.  If you continue to support this administration you imply your support of torture there is no way around it.   

[Thirteen]

do you read what you write? you stated:

According to Alberto Gonzales an act against a detainee can only be considered an act of torture IF it is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

the key word here being equivalent... now don't you think burning someone and sodomizing is equivalently painful to serious bodily harm? as for beatings....well they occur not only in the military but also in law enforcement... if they come to light they are often made into criminal charges...i have to admit i don't know a single political figure that stuck up for the torture in abu gharib but i guess you have a secret source that says otherwise...wait..no you don't.

and i see you falling back again on the Geneva Convention which is an agreement between COUNTRIES not countries and terrorists...you should do some research on the geneva convention since you obviously don't have a clue what it's used for

then you stoop to quoting A.G.?!? are you sane? according to A.G. you're a comedian.... A.G. works at a supermarket or some shit...what's his source? the national enquirer?

but anyways i don't listen to a thing you say because you're obsessed...you're twisting a person's words to suit your own needs...you've transcended your original purpose of spreading knowledge and perverted it into some crusade against republicans... i sincerly hope you get the medical attention you deserve or that you go on a shooting spree and get gunned down

[Ant]

A.G. = Alberto Gonzales = the Bush choice for Attorney General

do you read what you write? you stated:

According to Alberto Gonzales an act against a detainee can only be considered an act of torture IF it is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

the key word here being equivalent... now don't you think burning someone and sodomizing is equivalently painful to serious bodily harm?

I pointed out the foolishness of the A.G. definition of torture. If you think sodomy is ok because it isn't going to kill someone, then in my book you support and condone torture unless I'm misunderstanding you. 

I'm not spreading foolishness sadly I'm spreading the truth.  Republicans voted today to confirm Alberto Gonzales.  Democrats (minus a few)voted against him for the reasons I've outlined.  If you support Bush you accept the Bush definition on torture, and you find it acceptable to treat humans in a "cruel, inhumane, and degrading manner." If you don't consider that torture then so be it, but the majority of the world stands on my side of the argument.