We Now Sanction What We Once Condemned

Originally posted by Herman
No, you're either doging the issues, or just plain wrong. The "torture" (If you could even call it that) that was done to those Iraqi's at Abhu Grahab was not ordered by Bush or his top-officials. It was just these individual soldiers who decided to do something stupid. They were PUNISHED for it by our government.

I hate to say this, because I'm not trying to flame you; but you are very naive.

It's called a war.

You're telling ME about war? It figures. A kid telling a WAR VET about war. Bushfanz.. gotta love 'em.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
"The "torture" (If you could even call it that)" Herman

Herman? It wasn't torture? Stripped naked and beaten isn't torture? Humiliated by US troops isn't torture? WTF? Only a Bush Baby could think that. What, do you think they enjoyed having US troops stomp on their balls?

I'm saying that what we did to them is NOTHING compaired what they do to our soldiers. Again, I'm not saying it's right, but think of what they do to their prizoners. I think we're taking this a little too far already.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


I hate to say this, because I'm not trying to flame you; but you are very naive.

How am I being naive here? You're the one who's refusing to accept what's true. Our soldiers did stupid things, our government punished them, it's over! It's obvious that our government didn't condone these actions, so it's rediculous to set them equal to the nazi regime. Hitler's people were told by him what to do, and he rewarded them for what they did. Our government even apologized for what those soldiers did! What more do you want, honestly?

It's called a war.

You're telling ME about war? It figures. A kid telling a WAR VET about war. Bushfanz.. gotta love 'em.



I'm not telling you ABOUT the war. Maybe I worded it wrong, but I meant to say, where's the genocide? Is going to war against someone and killing their troops in battle genocide? Besides, I don't even know for sure that you were even IN the war.

Wait a minute here. Bush wasn't elected by God. He was elected by Richard Perle and the Neo-Cons. If Bush talks to God everyday then it certainly isn't the same God I talk to who says that what Bush is doing is wrong.

Fox

They didn't do anything until the media said something about it. If the media hadn't reported on it it would still be going on today while Bush and his oil buddies drink wine while counting the money.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
They didn't do anything until the media said something about it. If the media hadn't reported on it it would still be going on today while Bush and his oil buddies drink wine while counting the money.

Torture? It still goes on.

No biggie, tho. We're Americans. Whatever we do is ok. God loves us more than anyone in the whole wide world. Got it! Good.

Hey Herman, I think you should go straight to the recruiting office when you graduate. I mean, afterall, you are such a big supporter of all this. A little soft torture in training might do you some good. And heck, maybe after that, someone might see fit to send you to a real live war. Maybe then you can get a nice, up-close look at the reality that you know so much about.

But wait, I forgot.. the military's not for you. My bad.

Here's a little article for folks who just cannot fathom where the torture directives came from..

That is, if those folks can bear reading it. Afterall, their selectivity is astonishing.

February 1, 2005

A Legal Narrative
The Torture Memos
By JOSHUA L. DRATEL

Editors' Note: Below is an excerpt of original commentary from attorney Joshua Dratel, who has been involved with torture cases at Guantanamo Bay. Together with NYU law professor, Karen Greenberg, they have created the most comprehensive archive of government documents and internal memos to date to elucidate on the efforts of Bush officials in creating a policy for torturing "enemy combatant" prisoners. Those memo have just been published as a book, The Toture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib, by Cambridge University Press. AC / JS

While the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions, a host of internal government memos (collected in our book The Torture Papers) demonstrate that the path to the purgatory that is Guantanamo Bay, or Abu Ghraib, has been paved with decidedly bad intentions. The policies that resulted in rampant abuse of detainees first in Afghanistan, then at Guantanamo Bay, and later in Iraq, were product of three pernicious purposes designed to facilitate the unilateral and unfettered detention, interrogation, abuse, judgment, and punishment of prisoners:

(1) the desire to place the detainees beyond the reach of any court or law;

(2) the desire to abrogate the Geneva Convention with respect to the treatment of persons seized in the context of armed hostilities; and

(3) the desire to absolve those implementing the policies of any liability for war crimes under U.S. and international law.

Indeed, any claim of good faith--that those who formulated the policies were merely misguided in their pursuit of security in the face of what is certainly a genuine terrorist threat--is belied by the policy makers, more than tacit acknowledgment of their unlawful purpose. Otherwise, why the need to find a location--Guantanamo Bay--purportedly outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. (or any other) courts? Why the need to ensure those participating that they could proceed free of concern that they could face prosecution for war crimes as a result of their adherence to the policy? Rarely, if ever, has such a guilty governmental conscience been so starkly illuminated in advance.
www.counterpunch.org...

Here's the latest from Germany.. Atty. Gen. designate Alberto Gonzales has been added to the war crimes complaint.

GONZALES ADDED TO WAR CRIMES COMPLAINT IN GERMANY; NEW EVIDENCE SHOWS FAY REPORT ON ABU GHRAIB PROTECTED OFFICIALS
Center for Constitutional Rights

February 2, 2005

CCR Says Attorney General Designate’s Testimony before the Senate Confirms His Rolein Abu Ghraib Torture



Synopsis

CCR filed new documents on January 31, 2005, with the German Federal Prosecutor looking into war crimes charges against high-ranking U.S. officials including Donald Rumsfeld: one includes new evidence that the Fay investigation into Abu Ghraib protected Administration officials – it is a comprehensive and shocking opinion by Scott Horton, an expert on international law and the Chair of the International Law Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. The second is a letter that details how Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee confirms his role as complicit in the torture and abuse of detainees in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.
www.uruknet.info...

What part of Iraq would that be? Torture? If so, yes grasshoppa.. it was systemic, sanctioned from the top of the chain of command. Not familiar with that?

Yes, and that was some of the soldier's defense. Ironically, a military court found their defense lacking and they were found guilty of going against policy.

Open your eyes. If you did, you would see the mass murder of innocent Iraqis. But then again, to Bushfanz, they are not human. They are dirty AyeRabs who should be taken out by God's soldiers..

That was an interesting use of language; however, your assertion of innocent implies that you know they were clear from wrong doing. While Americans have the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty" the Iraqis do not necessarily carry the same standard (and many other countries do not either). The Iraqis are writing their constitution right now -- it'll be interesting if they include such terminology.

A second observation comes in the form of mixing the type of civilians killed: those killed during combat with americans but were not partcipating, those killed during combat with americans but were partcipating, and those killed outside of combat. With respect to the first, yes, sometimes those 'innocents' die -- luckily, for some of the major offensives, the Americans gave the citizens a lot of advanced warning to leave the area. Were they murdered? Not by definition. With respect to the second, the terrorists, while not fighting in a formal army could be considered to be civilians under strict definition (this is why some argue that such prisoners do not apply to POW regulations). In the third, we have iraqi citizens being killed by other iraqis -- something we are trying to prevent, not commit.

Childishness? Look whose talking. I guess it is easier to be brainwashed, braindead and blinde. Guess its much easier to sleep at night, eh?

Shhh. Name calling is unbecoming.

Hey, ECK, I love it how you are incapable of just carrying on a reasonable argument. It's funny how I'm 17, and still seemingly more mature than you in these arguments we have. I've done all I can to maintain a civil debate, and refrain from using childish ignorant name-calling and rhetoric, while all you can do is litter your posts with constant name-calling and disrespect. In your last post towards me, you didn't even attempt to make a point. All you did was disrespect my age and make fun of me for having not joined the military. I've been civil towards you, and this is how you respond. I'm done debating with you after this last comment.

This argument wasn't about whether or not torture should be allowed. It was about THIS particular case. It was about comparing the abhu grahab incident with the Nazi regime which was rediculous because the soldiers who committed the actions were PUNISHED. I don't agree with what these soldiers did to those prisoners, but only because the prisoners may not have been terrorists. If you want a debate about the legality of torture, start a new thread or something.

Originally posted by radardog

That was an interesting use of language; however, your assertion of innocent implies that you know they were clear from wrong doing.

After the dust cleared at Abu Ghraib, it was found that the vast majority (up to 70%) of Iraqis being held there were innocent of any wrongdoing. But hey - that doesn't matter does it?

After the dust cleared at Abu Ghraib, it was found that the vast majority (up to 70%) of Iraqis being held there were innocent of any wrongdoing. But hey - that doesn't matter does it?

As far as I can tell, not all prisoners were subjected to the famous treatment of the guards, either. Again, it is hard to tell if those that were tortured were innocent of any crimes. And no, it doesn't really matter. The soldiers were acting against policy with respect to the men they did torture, and they are being punished for it.

Originally posted by radardog
The soldiers were acting against policy with respect to the men they did torture, and they are being punished for it.

If I were you, I'd explore new sources. Yours are all wet.

Wow, one guy so far, right? What about the other dozen or so? Also, like ECK said, not all of them were guilty of anything other then being Arabic. Other then that they were innoccent.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Wow, one guy so far, right? What about the other dozen or so? Also, like ECK said, not all of them were guilty of anything other then being Arabic. Other then that they were innoccent.

No, we don't know if they were innocent or not. It doesn't matter, because what these soldiers did is wrong and the got punished for it already.

EastCoast,

Your valiant efforts to save your ill-thought post through completely disjointed logic is something less than admirable. This would be a good time to abandon ship, before you go down with it.

Keep searching for your cause, I am sure one day you will find one that is worth your zeal. As for this one, all you have done is generalized anyone with an opposing opinion into a Bush-loving category, when in fact all they are trying to do is point out to you how flawed your reasoning is, not defend Bush.

We are supposed to deny ignorance, not condone it. Just because you oppose the government doesn't make you a hero, war veteran and all. Don't shoot your mouth off so readily, some of us aren't so boastful about our military service.

Originally posted by Rain King
EastCoast,
Your valiant efforts to save your ill-thought post through completely disjointed logic is something less than admirable. This would be a good time to abandon ship, before you go down with it.

You're welcome to your opinons. They're like azzholes. Everyone's got 'em. But the next time you post on one of my threads, it'd be nice if you added something relevant to the conversation.

Rain King HATES EastCoastKid!

Everyone got that? Good. Time to move along.

Your juvenile tendencies do not even merit a reply.

Good luck carrying on a cohesive dicussion with this TERRIBLE thread (and your other poor attempts).

So sorry to intrude on YOUR thread territory, from now on I will leave you to being the leading poster on your own threads. Keep indulging your own sense of superiority, see where it gets you.

Hey folks, guess what? Now you can learn how to spy on your neighbors! That's right!

Public offered class on terror spotting

BY STAN FINGER

The Wichita Eagle

It's going to take more than all the law enforcement officers in the country to keep America safe from terrorist attacks.

We'll need our neighbors, too.

Average folks will play "a vital part" in keeping the nation safe from terrorist attacks, said Andra Bannister, director of the Regional Community Policing Training Institute at Wichita State University.
www.kansas.com...

You gotta love it, if you see a guy who looks like that, he's probably a terrorist! It would be so easy for someone that didn't like you to point you out to law enforcement and make some bogus claim against you. Talk about a slippery slope.

We're turning into a snitch nation. No one is safe.

This reminds me of COINTELPRO. John Asscroft brought that back and dusted it off. If you've never heard of it, look into it. You won't be sorry.
www.whatreallyhappened.com... pro.html

I've been pointing out for quite some time now how many of this administration's tactics remind me of the way Hitler and his propaganda goons' operated. It's probably more correct, at this point, to speak of the similarities between Stalin's regime and ours. I grew up detesting the Soviet government and its brutal, criminal, subhuman treatment of its citizens. I believed the USA was morally and spiritually superior. These days, though, I don't see much of a difference.

Secrecy, Torture, Propaganda Mark New American Politburo Practices

By Bill Gallagher

02/14/05 "Niagara Falls Reporter" - - DETROIT -- Like their Soviet predecessors, the top leaders of the American politburo -- Dick Cheney and George W. Bush -- never admit their mistakes or acknowledge their authoritarian policies and police-state oppression. The very thought of apologizing for failures and injustice -- no matter how disastrous and obvious -- is repugnant to such regimes.

Comrades Cheney and Bush get away with their propaganda with the unflinching support of the American Pravda -- right-wing talk radio, the Fox News Channel, televangelists and the hallelujah chorus of evangelical preachers who use their pulpits to preach the party line. To a somewhat lesser extent, the corporate media -- with a few noble exceptions -- join in the unrelenting campaign to distort, deceive and lie about the administration's past failures and future plans.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...