Lifestyle > Train of Thought
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:
--- Quote from: Ant on February 02, 2005, 06:10:11 PM ---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)
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Ant on February 02, 2005, 08:55:56 PM ---please show me some evidence that these rules have been in effect for decades?
--- End quote ---
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version