ABUSE CRISIS: ACLU : Bush Authorized Torture

The American Civil Lliberties Union released an FBI document Monday stating that President Bush authorized the use of forbidden interrogation methods using an executive order. The two-page FBI email dated May 2004 was obtained by the ACLU - among other documents - using a Freedom of Information Act suit in New York. Other allegations include interference of military commanders with abuse investigations, and Wolfowitz ordering DoD interrogators to pose as FBI personnel.




The news about american torture methods in Afghanistan, Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib have been grizzling the world for nearly a year out. Apparently, these weren't the acts of single madmen, but happened with explicit authorization by the president of the United States.


Related News Links:
newstandardnews.net
news.yahoo.com
freeinternetpress.com
aclu.org



[edit on 2-1-2005 by Banshee]

Here's the most comprehensive link to the story, including the original documents :

www.aclu.org...

Originally posted by krotzkrotz
Apparently, these weren't the acts of single madmen, but happened with explicit authorization by the president of the United States.

Exactly - a single madman.

Nothing Bush does surprises me any more. :shk:

Its apparent that this type discussion alledging that Bush authorized the use of torture to gain information has been floating around for almost a year plus.
It is also apparent that the government (Bush administration) is aware of this. In June of this year, the Whit e House Releases Documents on Torture in War on Terror

The Bush administration has released hundreds of pages of documents from the White House, the Defense Department and the Justice Department detailing internal debates, discussions and decisions related to the issue of torture in the war on terror.

The administration said it released this material to refute allegations that it authorized the use of torture to extract information from prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In releasing the documents to the public at a Washington briefing June 22, the White House counsel, Judge Alberto Gonzales, said, "the President has not authorized, ordered or directed in any way any activity that would transgress the standards of the torture conventions or the torture statute, or other applicable laws."

Truthout.org has been running with these allegations for quite sometime. Despite this, and in all fairness, here is a link to a site that has been compiling all aspects of torture, the government in whether they knowingly approved, etc.
USA: Prisoner Abuse & Policy, Abu Gharib Fallout, Updates: Agonist Compilation Thread




seekerof

Where are all the Bush supporters defending thier man? C'mon guys, you gotta be able to justify this.

The fact is, Bush is showing his true colors more and more. He claims to be a man of God, yet he authorizes this crap. Didnt Hitler authorize the torture and extermination of the Jews? Its OK though. 51% of America will sit back and pretend it never happened.

What??? NEVER!!!!!

Bush is a saintly God fearing man.

No no no no no! He would NEVER do something like this, just ask his followers.

I got news, he'd do a lot more than this and WILL

Kidfinger, there is no justification for this, per se', other than to say that such controversial methods have been (historical) and still are utilized by a vast majority of nations when applied to national interests and security.

I am a Bush supporter and provided an adequate link to show that the US, and most probably the Bush administration has authorized controversial methods, but then we get into the grey area of what is actually defined as "torture", don't we? Justification can take on varied discussions. Despite this, I don't wholly expect nor anticipate that the Bush administration will outright comment or state that they authorized the use of 'extreme' methods of torture. Thats a given. To defend it or to justify it is moot. One can simply assert that 9/11 changed things, in regards to methods of gathering information, but on the other hand, proponents can simply state and/or reply that any method that involves obtaining information through the use of those controversial methods, is inhumane and unwarrented. The debate is circular and will remain such.

Your comment addressing just the 51% (those that voted for Bush) is moot, because it fails to address those that voted against Bush and think that such uses of those controversial methods is warrented, and on the flip-side, does not address those 51% who are against such uses. Circular. It doesn't incorporate the other nations that utilize such methods, etc., etc.

I feel, IMHO, that such methods are warrented under extreme situations involving national security and military interests. There is no doubt that the authorization had to come from the 'top,' but the reasoning of such an authorization is more my interest and concern rather than simply spouting that it is "Bush's fault," "Hitler authorized....," etc.





seekerof

[edit on 21-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Ok seekerof. Maybe I came accross abit harsh. Heres what Im gonna do.

I want to ask everyone reading this thread if you think that the justification and authorization of torture was something the president should have done? Lets see just how many people really care about the "grey area".


There are many types of interrogation that dont include torture and are very effective technique. Torture is not needed to gain info. So I will answer my question first and say NO its NOT something Bush should have done. Better?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Kidfinger, there is no justification for this, per se', other than to say that such controversial methods have been (historical) and still are utilized by a vast majority of nations when applied to national interests and security.

The fact that the US President authorizes torture is not in any way supported by a blanket assertion about "the vast majority of nations". If a "vast majority" is say, 66%, I wonder if anybody has a snowball's chance in hell of listing 150 nations that authorize the use of torture in the interests of national security.

That is pure BS.

There is a reason why Bush has attempted to weasel his way out of international law through signing Executive Orders that break treaties in a vain attempt to protect himself and his cronies. Bush believes that he is in some way above the law and that his own abuse of the law is above international law. Not so.

I don't look forward to seeing the vast list of nations whose leadership breaks international treaties and behaves in the same way as the Bush administration. Because this list is imaginary.

as posted by Masked Avatar
That is pure BS.

As such, your refut is baseless. Provide to the contrary?
Btw, how many nation's are going to openly admit such controversial uses, Masked Avatar? Hmm?
As with the motto that "one man's terrorist is another freedom fighter," 'BS' is moot without and amounts to subjectiveness when not backed with anything remotely resembling a contrary viewpoint.
My list:
Egypt
Syria
Iran
China
North Korea
UK
Lebanon
France
Germany
Russia
Israel
India
Pakistan
South Africa
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Libya
etc.
etc
etc
etc
The list can go on despite many of these nations, and others, signing on to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Regardless of your contesting to what I said, the historical use of controversial methods to gain information is long and undeniable. Again, as I said above, this is not a justification, per se'. My whole interest in this matter is solely based on the reasoning for the allowing of such controversial methods being used.




seekerof

[edit on 21-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Justice served to all of us that had seen what this administration stand for, and I feel very sorry for the people that still support it blindly and it will still find excuses to keep supporting it.

But what can I said, "I told you so"

That felt very good.:duh

In the name of the lord and religion atrocities will always be committed against our fellows mankind and in the name of the lord and religion leaders will rised into the corruption of power.

Where do you have this list from, it's totally wrong. Torture isn't legal even in Israel.

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by Masked Avatar
That is pure BS.

As such, your refut is baseless. Provide to the contrary?

No, your statement is baseless. I have asked for proof. The US is unique amongst UN members for having a leader who writes Executive Orders as a deliberate attempt to protect himself and his cronies from having to work under treaties that the nation had freely entered, and to try to quarantine his gang of criminals from the auspices of international law.

Your list of torturing countries is 17 strong and there are six questionable entries on your list. Nonetheless, by my measure of "the vast majority of nations", you have only 133 to go. If you want to call a smaller or larger majority of countries "vast", then be my guest as you continue.

The specific reasoning applied by Bush to the use of criminal methods is not so much controversial as ill-judged, full of hubris and with no regard for the consequences of it, again as if the man is beyond the law of the land he has sworn to serve.

Anyone, including you Masked Avatar, that denies that there are multitudes of nations that use controversial methods to gain information, need to seriously reconsider their denials. From News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International:

Fifteen years on from the entry into force of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, torture and ill-treatment continue to be recorded in at least 111 countries throughout the world...

--snip--

"Only 129 of the 189 UN member states have become parties to the convention, and many of those that have are still failing to ensure its full implementation and allowing the practice of torture to continue unchecked," the organization added.

--snip--

"From Brazil to Saudi Arabia, from Russia to Indonesia, from the USA to Cameroon, state parties to the Convention are falling short of their obligation to take the necessary steps to prevent and sanction torture," Amnesty International said. "Torture should be confined to the history books. Instead, it is still widely used to extract confessions, to intimidate opponents or to punish, discipline or humiliate prisoners," the organization added.

Torture methods range from severe beatings -- such as the one suffered in April this year by Chinese labour activist Gu Baoshu after his arrest in connection with workers' demonstrations -- to electric shocks, sexual abuse, and deprivation of food and sleep.

TORTURE




seekerof

[edit on 21-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Seekerof only one question and be honest,

Do you can still defend the actions of Mr.Bush after the evidence from the FBI?

You know I am beyond words I am to tired for debate but this is very serious, even my husband thinks that some heads in the FBI are going to roll from all these information. Even he is in awe.

Seeker of I know that you condemn the abuses at least I can give you that much credit but please can you accept now finally that our God fearing president is just a fake.

[edit on 21-12-2004 by marg6043]

Just to clarify Seekerof, but did you say and mean "vast majority of nations" (aka vast majority of governments) still use torture? Sorry, but I have to find that hard to believe. I look forward to you continuing your list of torture using countries... please do not end it with etc, etc... Also, (just asking), could you provide proof (or at least a link) that each of the countries you list, condone and use torture? How many countries in the world anyway? (so I know how many are needed to make a vast majority).

Your last article clipping doesn't say that 111 world governments condone and use torture, it says that there are 111 countries where ill-treatment continues to be recorded (that doesn't mean that it is that countries government or military that is doing the torturing, does it?).

He's worse than that Marg- he's the agent of Lucifer

I though US condemn torture, I though US and most Americans agree that torture is a violation of human rights, that is why we got Saddam out of power. Right?

I am getting confused US never has agreed with torture, unless it has been done in secrecy.

Now, the prison abuse in Iraq were not secret they were very much in the open.

IronDogg,
111 nations out of 129 that signed on to United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment equates to a "vast majority," and thats not counting the other those within the 60, that didn't sign on, that may be utilizing controversial methods to obtain information.

marg,

Do you can still defend the actions of Mr.Bush after the evidence from the FBI?

I have stated before, though I am a supporter of Bush, this in no way constitutes that I agree or defend him on each and every allegation, etc.

dgtempe,
Seems that Lucifer has a host of "agents," nor are they restricted to this administration or this country.




seekerof

[edit on 21-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Well seekerof, it seems that so far, your the only one that feels Bush should have authorized it. By the way, If 150other nations jumped off a bridge, woould you expect the US to follow?