Rumsfeld May Have Ordered Children To Be Raped and Sodomized In Front Of Parents For Information

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I know I'm no one important here but can I ask why Yumi was banned?

You can ask, but you probably won't get an answer.

This is highly disturbing to me.

Who cares? They're terrorists, they attacked us, we fought back, now you're crying about it? Don't smack a beehive with a stick if you don't want to be stung.

It's sad how so many people who hate Bush will grasp at any straw. I'm sure if I were to start a blog , and post that Rummy was a dog diddiler it would show up here as FACT.
Quite a pity as I used to look forward to perusing this site.

Wasn't the reporter the man who exposed Abu Ghraib? So maybe he is mad that Abu Ghraib didn't do as much damage as he thought it would so he is making up seeing videos and hearing boys screaming.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Imagine your child is missing, and you've got a serial killer on your hands who knows exactly where your child is stowed away. He won't tell you. If he doesn't tell you, your child will die. Time is running out. How do you get the information from him?

I would plead and beg. I would appeal to his humanity.

What would you do? Sodomize him? Hook his genitals up to electrodes? I'm not sure I understand your point?

I mentioned nothing about sodomizing. We don't even know if that's what really happened. There is no definite proof indicating that it did. Those are speculations at this point. I am not denying that it is possible, I am saying it has not yet been proven beyond a doubt.

I'm sure the serial killer would find some good within himself and tell you exactly where your child is. I'm sure that when he was strangling or slicing some poor soul with a knife, their cries and pleads really helped them. We're talking about people who enjoy literally ripping hearts out of people, eating body parts, etc. etc. The frustration of trying to interrogate a man such as this is immense, especially as he smiles at you, lying through his teeth. A punch to the face may be inappropriate, but everyone has their limits.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing this guy to terrorists.


Oh. Then disregard my suggestions above, but I'm still curious what you would do.

I don't know what I would do. It is hard to say. I have never been placed in such a situation. I may keep my cool for some time, but if I am continuously provoked, I just might react in an unpredictable manner. There are people out there who can provoke you to do things you never thought you would do.

I'm just putting forth an example of a situation in which torture/violence might come in as an option.


An emotional mother, thinking she might be able to save her child might resort to violence - as in beating against his chest to try to get it out of him. I'm not sure sodomizing him would encourage him to tell her where her child is. Somehow, I think that would solidify his resolve NOT to tell her. But like you said, you're not comparing this to the torture of terrorists. (Although it sounds to me like you are.)

No, I wasn't comparing this to terrorists. I was mainly responding to the person who claimed that violence is -never- a good solution/option.

In any case, the measured torture of prisoners is so totally different than a mother whose child's death is imminent. Nothing is imminent. And the torturers don't know whether these prisoners actually have information or not. They're just hoping to get 'something' out of them. No specific information.

As I stated above, I wasn't talking about terrorists.

As for prisoner interrogation, different people withstand different amounts of interrogation/torture. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be applied (unless we're talking about sick -individuals- who enjoy torturing). Most of the prisoners being interrogated are not innocent individuals who know nothing (though just like in our own prison system, unfortunately such things DO happen). In most cases they are there, because there is good cause to believe that they know something. They are not oridnary Iraqi citizens and farmers. Many of these prisoners were caught while shooting at American troops, etc. etc.

Is there another way? What would you do?


Sodium Pentathol. What would you do?

There is no such thing as a truth serum. Sodium Pentathol does nothing except make you drowsy and a bit talkative. If you don't wish to disclose information, you won't. Unlike in the movie "True Lies", in real life it doesn't work that way. If there was such a thing as a truth serum, a lot of criminal cases would have been solved by now.

Truth Serum is a movie item, not a real item. Why not use it on everyone if it worked? Or in court cases and you are innocent why not beg to get a shot of it and prove your innocence?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Sodium Pentathol ... It doesn't guarantee that the person will tell you the truth.

Neither does torture.

No, it doesn't guarantee it, but it is far more effective than what you're suggesting.

If it worked, don't you think they would have used it instead of applying torture?

Not so sure about that.

I'm sure there'd still be sick individuals who would take pleasure in it, but torture would definitely not be condoned by the government or any officer in charge (who was in his right mind) if there was a non-violent alternative.

Again, the person may choose to simply not tell you where a location may be, or give up names, etc. He/she is not lying, he/she is just choosing not to talk.

Or they can make stuff up under torture just to make it stop. Even if they don't have the information.

And what about those who don't have any information... What about the innocent ones? How do you feel about them being tortured?

You're absolutely right. Torture can make people say things which aren't true, just to make it stop, BUT it can also convince them to spill everything they know. I have no alternatives. I hope someone finds an alternative, but I don't have the answers. I don't like to see people suffer. I am not one to judge and say "you deserve it", but I know that desperation makes you do things you wouldn't do otherwise. War is war. You need to find valuable information as soon as possible, so you have an edge over the enemy. The military has some of the best technology in the world,... things we have yet to hear about. If they can't find an alternative to interrogations and possible torture, who can??

Originally posted by Gigram
Truth Serum is a movie item, not a real item. Why not use it on everyone if it worked? Or in court cases and you are innocent why not beg to get a shot of it and prove your innocence?

Neither truth serum nor lie detectors nor torture have any guarantees. Maybe torture is the 'best thing' some people can think of but I cannot advocate it under any circumstances. In my mind, it's evil. I couldn't do it, I couldn't order it and I can't condone it.

Why are the Geneva Conventions even in place? If torture is "not such a bad thing if you really need it", then why do we have these policies that under most conditions keep us from resorting to it? Why even bother with the US military setting standards that they have no intention of living up to them? If torture is the last resort, why don't our policies state such? It's all a lie.

I find it incredibly sad that people are willing to 'sell out' their standards. In my opinion, a person who makes excuses for torture never had any to begin with.

I don't think Rummy would order such an act. Yeah, he's had his nose in some bad trash lately....but not even he would stoop this low.

I only agree with torture in certain extreme situations....like that stuff that happenes in 24, a fourth quarter hell mary with seven seconds left and something bad is about to happen, many innocent people are about to die....and this guy (or woman) is the only one that knows enough information to stop it.

But, ofcourse, that's Hollywood and hardly ever happens in 'real life'...but if it did, then yeah, torture would be more than justified.

I think it's pathetic that people cannot see the justification in torturing one man (only in legit extreme circumstances) to save the lives of innocent people. No value for human life at all

Then again, who decides what is considered "extreme"? People will come up with BS and make up lies to make it look like torturing was the only option.....that's the sad thing about it.



[edit on 24/6/2006 by SportyMB]

I have to agree with sporty...I don't think Rumsfelf (specifically) ordered this either, BUT from what I have seen he wouldn't prohibit it either unless he thought they would get caught at it. I repeat, there were stories circulating about this when Abu Graib first broke and by the DoD own estimate 90% of the people in Abu Graib at the time just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when we conducted a (indescriminate) sweep....why else would have there been women and children there in the first place. That place was so hated by the Iraqi's that it was an act of profound stupidity and arrogance to have chosen to use it in the first place, instead of razing it to the ground. If we had done that one simple act in the first place, we would have garnered so much good will for it....but then again what do you expect from a bunch of idiots without a speck of vision in their pointy little heads?

Wars are moral battles fought in the minds of their participants (and onlookers), as much as they are physical battles fought by trading blood for territory.

Those who argue for torture as an indispensible tool in dire circumstances need to look at it with a colder, more calculating eye, and do a simple cost-benefit analysis. Abu Ghraib is a perfect example - have any short-term tactical gains obtained through the torture or "abuses" (kinder, gentler torture?) there proven even remotely comparable to the strategic damage the Abu Ghraib revelations have done?

Originally posted by Gigram
Truth Serum is a movie item, not a real item. Why not use it on everyone if it worked? Or in court cases and you are innocent why not beg to get a shot of it and prove your innocence?

REPLY: Actually Sodium Thiopental, my mistake. However:

1- Use as Truth Serum

Thiopental is still used in some places as a truth serum. The barbiturate drugs as a class decrease higher cortical brain functioning. Since lying is more complex than the truth, suppression of the higher cortical functions may lead to the divulgement of the "truth."

2- Psychiatry

Psychiatrists and hypnotists have also used thiopental to facilitate the answering of questions.

So, lets see here.... there's a law against using a "movie item" for interrogation purposes?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Gigram
Truth Serum is a movie item, not a real item. Why not use it on everyone if it worked? Or in court cases and you are innocent why not beg to get a shot of it and prove your innocence?

Neither truth serum nor lie detectors nor torture have any guarantees. Maybe torture is the 'best thing' some people can think of but I cannot advocate it under any circumstances. In my mind, it's evil. I couldn't do it, I couldn't order it and I can't condone it.

There are few people who could, and that is why you and I are not running these prisons.

Why are the Geneva Conventions even in place? If torture is "not such a bad thing if you really need it", then why do we have these policies that under most conditions keep us from resorting to it? Why even bother with the US military setting standards that they have no intention of living up to them? If torture is the last resort, why don't our policies state such? It's all a lie.

Geneva Conventions do not apply to these prisoners, because we are not fighting any particular nations. These prisoners are supposed to be terrorists not officially affiliated with any nation in the world. That is why the Geneva Conventions are not in place. They only apply if the prisoners are legitimate soldiers of a particular country with which we are in war.

I find it incredibly sad that people are willing to 'sell out' their standards. In my opinion, a person who makes excuses for torture never had any to begin with.

A person who makes excuses for torture has probably been exposed to situations you haven't even dreamed about, let alone experience. I understand why you would argue against torture, and it makes perfect sense to thousands, if not millions of people like you. To a soldier who's seen things and experienced things in the battlefield we can't even think of...... he/she may have a different opinion.

[edit on 24-6-2006 by 2manyquestions]

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Geneva Conventions do not apply to these prisoners, because we are not fighting any particular nations.

I know that. How convenient, huh? Tell me though, is torturing a man any more acceptable because this 'enemy' doesn't belong to a specific country? Is it any more right?

These prisoners are supposed to be terrorists

Supposed to be? You mean suspected to be? He's a suspect, not charged with anything (other than being a possible 'terrorist'). No access to a lawyer or US laws (how convenient, again) and so it's ok to torture him... he's not even innocent until PROVEN guilty. But he doesn't wear a uniform and our ass is covered because he's not on US soil ... so yeah, let's torture him.

A person who makes excuses for torture has probably been exposed to situations you haven't even dreamed about, let alone experience.

Don't count on it.



[edit on 24-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Let's not use this new tidbit of alleged information to once again become the battleground between Dems and Repubs.

If Washington Post was a responsible reporting agency, then it would not print the story without backing it up with proof and that would air on national TV as the latest biggee for all the Bush haters. I must add, the Created Bush haters. How much hate for Bush is nothing more than propaganda promoted by his politically motivated enemies?

I'm not for or agin Bush. I'm just not biting the bait that either side keep throwing out to us little ignoramus's out here that aren't close enuf to the building to know the truth. We put our trust in journalism? Lotsa luck to us all.

So, the proof is in the pudding. Where's the puddin'?

Originally posted by Interested009
I must add, the Created Bush haters. How much hate for Bush is nothing more than propaganda promoted by his politically motivated enemies?


Sorry to burst your bubble but from my experince, the majority of us Bush whackers (those of us who have disliked him from the beginning anyway), are opposed to him based on our opposition to his policies and the damage that we believe that they are doing to our country and do not need a mush loosebowels or ann coulter or glenn beck etal to stir us up. He and his policies are doing a perfectly adequate job of doing that already.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Geneva Conventions do not apply to these prisoners, because we are not fighting any particular nations.

I know that. How convenient, huh? Tell me though, is torturing a man any more acceptable because this 'enemy' doesn't belong to a specific country? Is it any more right?

Please don't twist my words. I never said it was O.K. to torture anyone. I said it happens, and I named reasons why it happens. You asked why the U.S. wasn't following the Geneva Conventions, and I explained that to you.

Conveniant? That's your opinion. The U.S. still must maintain human rights, because the U.S. is under the scrutiny of the world. Even without the Geneva Conventions they must follow decent standards. U.S. Soldiers have already been sent to jail for what they had done to some prisoners. They did not remain unpunished, and I strongly believe that when absolute proof/evidence against more soldiers comes forth, they too will be punished.

These prisoners are supposed to be terrorists

Supposed to be? You mean suspected to be? He's a suspect, not charged with anything (other than being a possible 'terrorist'). No access to a lawyer or US laws (how convenient, again) and so it's ok to torture him... he's not even innocent until PROVEN guilty. But he doesn't wear a uniform and our ass is covered because he's not on US soil ... so yeah, let's torture him.

I said they are "supposed to be" terrorists, because I realize there might be some prisoners who 'may' be innocent. It happens in and out of war. It would be silly to state with 100% certainty that all the prisoners are terrorists. Once again, nowhere in my posts did I say it was O.K. to torture anyone. Please don't try to put words in my mouth.
Neither one of us have ever been to Abu Ghraib, or witnessed any of these acts you're arguying with me about. We don't know who the prisoners are, we don't know what they are guilty of, we don't know how they got there, we don't know if they are complying, resisting, provoking, or simply don't know anything.

You're naive in thinking that U.S. citizens get much better treatment when suspected of a crime. The PC thing to say is "You're innocent until proven guilty", but I think anyone who's ever been accused of a crime knows better, especially if they're part of the lower class who can't afford a big shot lawyer. Jail even for a citizen of the U.S. is no joke.

You're making too many assumptions. Frankly there is no point arguing about assumptions, except to point out that that's what they are.

A person who makes excuses for torture has probably been exposed to situations you haven't even dreamed about, let alone experience.

Don't count on it.

I don't know you, I don't know what you've been through. If it seems I made a bad assumption about you, I apologize. The main purpose of my statement was to give you an example what kind of people might make excuses for torture. Unless you've been shot at, had your friend killed in front of you or been tortured yourself, it is easier to say "I'd NEVER condone torture, let alone commit torture myself". People who are surrounded by relative safety (i.e. not in the middle of a battlefield), they are less likely to be able to understand where the desire for torture may come from. People who haven't been provoked to their limits may never fully understand where the desire for violence and murder comes from. I am not saying it is RIGHT, I'm only telling you how it happens, and how 'good' people can end up doing the 'wrong' things.

So, is it true? Were children sodomized and raped? Several links, well, about a dozen, to people being raped, and children, some as young as 10, being held there. And Program Copper Green, apporved by Donald Rumsfeld, seems to have been used in Abu Ghraib.

And instead of saying "I don't think he would so it means he didn't" read the links.
Instead of going "Well she got banned so she must have been making this up." Was she using mind control on Seymour? Did she edit the video of his speech that was cut short? Did she make up the story of VIDEO and AUDIO of children being raped that the congress decided were to harsh to be released?

Unless you've been shot at, had your friend killed in front of you or been tortured yourself, it is easier to say "I'd NEVER condone torture, let alone commit torture myself". People who are surrounded by relative safety (i.e. not in the middle of a battlefield), they are less likely to be able to understand where the desire for torture may come from.

You mean like Sen. John Mccain? Does his opinion and experience count? He's been tortured, beaten up, locked in a cell for years and has had many friends die in front of him.

Are you speaking from experience?

[edit on 25/6/2006 by SportyMB]

video.google.com...

Feel free toshare this with everyone you know, unless you doubt it as being true.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!! It's so hard to believe that this can be happening in our own lives cause we have terrible problems with confronting evil.

But, it's twue, it's twue. Not cause I say so, but because you'd have to be deaf, blind, and dumb not to see the writing on the wall.

IT'S TIME FOR EVERY GOOD MAN TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR COUNTRY.
AND WOMEN TOO.