1
   

IF THE SHRUB PARDONS LIBBY . . .

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 11:07 am
"moral logic"? What is that exactly?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 11:18 am
no one expects to grasp the concept... as you were..
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 11:20 am
snood wrote:
Brandon:
Quote:
And the lie was.....???



Revel:
Quote:
Its utter bull crap to anyone of any kind of moral logic whats so ever.


Yup.
If someone accused you of being a liar, wouldn't you want them to specify at least one statement of yours they were claiming was a lie, as opposed to just making the accusation without any specifics? I am sure that you would. Moreover, it's obviously the responsibility of someone making such a statement to give an example. What if for some unlucky reason you found yourself in a situation in which there were a lot of people around you who hated you, and they were making all sorts of horrible acusations against you in public, but always rather vaguely, with no facts ever given to substantiate anything? I'm sure you'd love that, if it were you. If you just fling enough mud, you can ruin anyone.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 11:22 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush said, "we don't torture our prisoners."

Alright, well in order to demonstrate that that was a lie, you would have to give one example of the torture of a prisoner, which occurred prior to his statement, and which was not some individual or some small group acting contrary to official policy. Also, it cannot be an act which the administration soon thereafter forbade.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 11:26 am
Brandon, Isn't it the other way around? You must prove with all the evidence provided by the media, it's up to you to prove Bush doesn't torture our prisoners?

Otherwise, you need to challenge all the media reports, and show they are all lies.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 11:31 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
no one expects to grasp the concept... as you were..


So you have no idea either then, right?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 11:45 am
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 11:57 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush said, "we don't torture our prisoners."

Alright, well in order to demonstrate that that was a lie, you would have to give one example of the torture of a prisoner, which occurred prior to his statement, and which was not some individual or some small group acting contrary to official policy. Also, it cannot be an act which the administration soon thereafter forbade.


Sure it can. Just because they forbade something doesn't mean it wasn't approved beforehand.

It's pretty telling to me that until the 'tiger team' from Guantanamo showed up, there wasn't any widespread abuse or torture at Abu Ghraib. I guess that's just a big coincidence to you, that when the specially trained interrogators showed up and were told to 'get results,' abuses and torture and killings suddenly started popping up all over the prison.

You know that there was no investigation of Abu Ghraib which was allowed to look at anything but the lowest ranked members involved; so why do you even pretend to believe the bullsh*t you've spouted about 'some small group'? The army effective stonewalled any investigation into it, because Rumsfeld just didn't care. At all.

Bush lied about the NSA spying, as you know, but you didn't respond to that comment, I see.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 12:04 pm
There is zero evidence to support any charge that the administration had any official policy of condoning torture. That the government lied about it's spy programs should hardly be a surprise. What kind of government tells it's enemies how it uses its spy programs? It beyond stupidity to think that spy operations should be public knowledge.

Unfortunately, the left has it in for the administration and has from the beginning. It's a case of "look what you did to our guy!" Conjecture, hear-say and words are no match for law and official documentation.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 12:07 pm
Let's get this straight; the right wants documentation and evidence from the very administration that refuses to provide congress with those "documents and evidence."

Some people's thinking borders on stupidity.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 12:26 pm
Quote:
Unfortunately, the left has it in for the administration and has from the beginning. It's a case of "look what you did to our guy!" Conjecture, hear-say and words are no match for law and official documentation.


Fortunately the left has expanded.

I see no need to expand on my previous posts as there has not been anything of note to refute it.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 12:28 pm
Bush sometimes tells the truth. A few years ago he said that if anyone in the White House was involved in Plamegate, "I will take care of them." We now know that he didn't lie about this.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 01:14 pm
Bush, the Nazis, and Torture

Quote:



enhanced interrogation

Quote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2007/05/29/translationofmuellermemo.jpg

The phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung" is German for "enhanced interrogation". Other translations include "intensified interrogation" or "sharpened interrogation". It's a phrase that appears to have been concocted in 1937, to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks, and hence save the embarrassment pre-war Nazi officials were experiencing as their wounded torture victims ended up in court. The methods, as you can see above, are indistinguishable from those described as "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the president. As you can see from the Gestapo memo, moreover, the Nazis were adamant that their "enhanced interrogation techniques" would be carefully restricted and controlled, monitored by an elite professional staff, of the kind recommended by Charles Krauthammer, and strictly reserved for certain categories of prisoner. At least, that was the original plan.

Also: the use of hypothermia, authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld, was initially forbidden. 'Waterboarding" was forbidden too, unlike that authorized by Bush. As time went on, historians have found that all the bureaucratic restrictions were eventually broken or abridged. Once you start torturing, it has a life of its own. The "cold bath" technique - the same as that used by Bush against al-Qahtani in Guantanamo - was, according to professor Darius Rejali of Reed College,

pioneered by a member of the French Gestapo by the pseudonym Masuy about 1943. The Belgian resistance referred to it as the Paris method, and the Gestapo authorized its extension from France to at least two places late in the war, Norway and Czechoslovakia. That is where people report experiencing it.
In Norway, we actually have a 1948 court case that weighs whether "enhanced interrogation" using the methods approved by president Bush amounted to torture. The proceedings are fascinating, with specific reference to the hypothermia used in Gitmo, and throughout interrogation centers across the field of conflict. The Nazi defense of the techniques is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2007/05/29/agcorpse3.jpg

Here's a document from Norway's 1948 war-crimes trials detailing the prosecution of Nazis convicted of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the Second World War. Money quote from the cases of three Germans convicted of war crimes for "enhanced interrogation":

Between 1942 and 1945, Bruns used the method of "verschärfte Vernehmung" on 11 Norwegian citizens. This method involved the use of various implements of torture, cold baths and blows and kicks in the face and all over the body. Most of the prisoners suffered for a considerable time from the injuries received during those interrogations.

Between 1942 and 1945, Schubert gave 14 Norwegian prisoners "verschärfte Vernehmung," using various instruments of torture and hitting them in the face and over the body. Many of the prisoners suffered for a considerable time from the effects of injuries they received.

On 1st February, 1945, Clemens shot a second Norwegian prisoner from a distance of 1.5 metres while he was trying to escape. Between 1943 and 1945, Clemens employed the method of " verschäfte Vernehmung " on 23 Norwegian prisoners. He used various instruments of torture and cold baths. Some of the prisoners continued for a considerable time to suffer from injuries received at his hands.
Freezing prisoners to near-death, repeated beatings, long forced-standing, waterboarding, cold showers in air-conditioned rooms, stress positions [Arrest mit Verschaerfung], withholding of medicine and leaving wounded or sick prisoners alone in cells for days on end - all these have occurred at US detention camps under the command of president George W. Bush. Over a hundred documented deaths have occurred in these interrogation sessions. The Pentagon itself has conceded homocide by torture in multiple cases. Notice the classic, universal and simple criterion used to define torture in 1948 (my italics):

In deciding the degree of punishment, the Court found it decisive that the defendants had inflicted serious physical and mental suffering on their victims, and did not find sufficient reason for a mitigation of the punishment in accordance with the provisions laid down in Art. 5 of the Provisional Decree of 4th May, 1945. The Court came to the conclusion that such acts, even though they were committed with the connivance of superiors in rank or even on their orders, must be regarded and punished as serious war crimes.
The victims, by the way, were not in uniform. And the Nazis tried to argue, just as John Yoo did, that this made torturing them legit. The victims were paramilitary Norwegians, operating as an insurgency, against an occupying force. And the torturers had also interrogated some prisoners humanely. But the argument, deployed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Nazis before them, didn't wash with the court. Money quote:

As extenuating circumstances, Bruns had pleaded various incidents in which he had helped Norwegians, Schubert had pleaded difficulties at home, and Clemens had pointed to several hundred interrogations during which he had treated prisoners humanely.

The Court did not regard any of the above-mentioned circumstances as a sufficient reason for mitigating the punishment and found it necessary to act with the utmost severity. Each of the defendants was responsible for a series of incidents of torture, every one of which could, according to Art. 3 (a), (c) and (d) of the Provisional Decree of 4th May, 1945, be punished by the death sentence.
So using "enhanced interrogation techniques" against insurgent prisoners out of uniform was punishable by death. Here's the Nazi defense argument:

(c) That the acts of torture in no case resulted in death. Most of the injuries inflicted were slight and did not result in permanent disablement.
This is the Yoo position. It's what Glenn Reynolds calls the "sensible" position on torture. It was the camp slogan at Camp Nama in Iraq: "No Blood, No Foul." Now take the issue of "stress positions", photographed at Abu Ghraib and used at Bagram to murder an innocent detainee. Here's a good description of how stress positions operate:

The hands were tied together closely with a cord on the back of the prisoner, raised then the body and hung the cord to a hook, which was attached into two meters height in a tree, so that the feet in air hung. The whole body weight rested thus at the joints bent to the rear. The minimum period of hanging up was a half hour. To remain there three hours hung up, was pretty often. This punishment was carried out at least twice weekly.
This is how one detainee at Abu Ghraib died (combined with beating) as in the photograph above. The experience of enduring these stress positions has been described by Rush Limbaugh as no worse than frat-house hazings. Those who have gone through them disagree. They describe:

Dreadful pain in the shoulders and wrists were the results of this treatment. Only laboriously the lung could be supplied with the necessary oxygen. The heart worked in a racing speed. From all pores the sweat penetrated.
Yes, this is an account of someone who went through the "enhanced interrogation techniques" at Dachau. (Google translation here.)

Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 01:46 pm
McGentrix wrote:
There is zero evidence to support any charge that the administration had any official policy of condoning torture.


rejection of the geneva conventions. refusal to participate in the world court. not very indicative of not condoning it.

"if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.."

isn't that what gets thrown around when people get upset about illegal wiretaps ?


well then.....?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 02:24 pm
This administration also disregard habeas corpus, the last vestige of safety for all humans. Some people are blind even with 20/20 eye site.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 02:29 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
This administration also disregard habeas corpus, the last vestige of safety for all humans. Some people are blind even with 20/20 eye site.


dead enders Laughing
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 12:20 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
sure, why not. he's misused and abused just about every other power he's been given.
Absolutely fascinating that you make a blanket accusation like this without giving one single example. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything.


Lied about the NSA wiretapping as you well know.

Cycloptichorn


I'm not sure how lying constitutes misusing or abusing a power.

Anyway, anything wrong with him lying about it? It is a top secret program. I wouldn't expect them to be forthcoming with information about it.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 12:27 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
This administration also disregard habeas corpus, the last vestige of safety for all humans. Some people are blind even with 20/20 eye site.


The military commissions act only rescinds it for foreign enemy combatants. It doesn't rescind it for citizens, or for foreigners who are legally present in the country.

Also, the Bush Administration did not request the habeas corpus thing. That was put in the bill by McCain and company. I'm sure the Bush administration is happy that they put it in there though.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 04:40 am
oralloy wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
This administration also disregard habeas corpus, the last vestige of safety for all humans. Some people are blind even with 20/20 eye site.


The military commissions act only rescinds it for foreign enemy combatants. It doesn't rescind it for citizens, or for foreigners who are legally present in the country.

Also, the Bush Administration did not request the habeas corpus thing. That was put in the bill by McCain and company. I'm sure the Bush administration is happy that they put it in there though.


'Enemy combatants' is merely another term coined by the administration where they make up the new rules and phrases as they along to fit with what ever they want to do. And of course they can be sure of being defended by their supporters who thankfully have shrunk to repeat their made up phrases and rules. Besides that I don't even think your right as the second link shows.

What is the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant"

We're All Enemy Combatants Now
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 04:56 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Brandon, Isn't it the other way around? You must prove with all the evidence provided by the media, it's up to you to prove Bush doesn't torture our prisoners?

Otherwise, you need to challenge all the media reports, and show they are all lies.

So, you accuse someone of lying and then say it's up to others to prove it's untrue. It is self-evident that if you accuse someone of something, you need to give some evidence to back up your accusation. It is not up to me to embark on a study of information in the public domain to disprove your unsubstantiated accusation. If you were correct, it is likely that you would offer some evidence of what you charge, especially when asked to back up your words.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 08:03:38