Carter says U.S tortures prisoners

Carter says U.S tortures prisoners

www.cnn.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I wonder how they are going to try to deny this one lol

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, if Carter says so it must be true....NOT!

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Well, if Carter says so it must be true....NOT!

And if Bush says it's not true it must not be true!

Originally posted by merryxmas
And if Bush says it's not true it must not be true!

Exactly, especially since nobody as of yet has been able to provide me a link proving Bush lied. Its all Bush derangement syndrome.

I thought it was pretty much commen knowledge throughout the world that the CIA tortures prisoners. It's one of the reasons why the USA's reputation has been tarnished so badly. The U.K has also been guilty of abuse. I watched one documentary and the things I saw was absolutely disgusting and made me ashamed.

[edit on 10uWednesday07/27/20 by paul76]

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Exactly, especially since nobody as of yet has been able to provide me a link proving Bush lied. Its all Bush derangement syndrome.

Yep, especially since nobody as of yet has been able to provide me a link proving Bush told the truth. It's all Bush aggrandizing syndrome.

Originally posted by paul76
I thought it was pretty much commen knowledge throughout the world that the CIA tortures prisoners.

I guess their info is biased and inaccurate. The CIA does not torture people unless you call having panties on your head and being put in a cold cell torture.

It's one of the reasons why the USA's reputation has been tarnished so badly.

Frankly, I don't care what other countries think about the reputation of the U.S.

Originally posted by merryxmas
Yep, especially since nobody as of yet has been able to provide me a link proving Bush told the truth.

Sorry, but it does not work this way. The person making a accusation is the one who need to provide proof. If you are accusing Bush of lying then prove it. Otherwise its like someone in court NOT having the presumption of innocence. You have to prove someone is guilty and not vice-versa.

It's all Bush aggrandizing syndrome.

I don't like a lot of things about Bush's policies but he is not a lier so your statement is moot if it was directed towards me.

I certainly hope we torture people. It'd be a shame if we just let our knowledgeable prisoners sit in cushy cells with proper medical care and food containing as many nutrients as they would normally get in a year. All while their comrades butcher, slaughter, and behead our still-living soldiers, and then post videos of it on the Internet.

Wait... that is what happens!

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan


Much in the way OJ says he is innocnet or Barry Bonds did not use steriods. If he nothing to hide, that 'Executive Priviledge" stamp would not be due for replacement eh?

But at anyrate, putting someone in a cold cell or panties on thier head, or say any of the things WE know Rummy hench Bush approved:

— Use of 20-hour interrogations.

— Removal of all comfort items, including religious items.

— Removal of clothing.

— Using detainees' "individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress."
www.foxnews.com...

And if not then why all the schenagins to make sure it was leaglly defensable. IMHO Gonzales who rendered alot of the opinions should face charges for war crimes.
fl1.findlaw.com...


At any rate I ask you would any of this be allowed if you were in prison? No, none of it would be nor would you be held indefinetly without charges being filed.

But if we cannot abide by the framework of our own Constitution and Bill of Rights how are we any better than those we decry?

Frankly, I don't care what other countries think about the reputation of the U.S.

Yeah, thats right, we here in the South have been hating the Union since 1865 and no one notices.

And Carter carries almost zero credibility, even in his home state where we here have tried to forget that part of history.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by shai hulud]

Jimmy Carter calls Cheney a "disaster" for U.S

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney as a "disaster" for the country and a "militant" who has had an excessive influence in setting foreign policy.

Cheney has been on the wrong side of the debate on many issues, including an internal White House discussion over Syria in which the vice president is thought to be pushing a tough approach, Carter said.

"He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world," Carter told the BBC World News America in an interview to air later on Wednesday.

"You know he's been a disaster for our country," Carter said. "I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed."

Asked to comment on Carter's remarks, Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the Republican vice president, said, "We're not going to engage in this type of rhetoric."

www.reuters.com...

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Exactly, especially since nobody as of yet has been able to provide me a link proving Bush lied. Its all Bush derangement syndrome.

Here are 12 lies, there are 50+ more on the same site. I didn't go very far down the google page 'bush lies' so I would imagine another 3 minutes research would provide quite a few more links, but why don't you start by defending these...

1. Bush: "We went into Russia, we said, 'Here's some IMF money,' and it ended up in Viktor Chernomyrdin's pocket and others."

Fact: "Bush appears to have tangled up whispers about possible wrongdoing by Chernomyrdin -- who co-chaired a commission with Gore on U.S.-Russian relations -- with other unrelated allegations concerning the diversion of International Monetary Fund money. While there has been speculation that Chernomyrdin profited from his relationship with Gazprom, a big Russian energy concern, there have been no allegations that he stole IMF money." Washingon Post, 10/12/00

2. Bush: "We got one [a hate crime law] in Texas, and guess what? The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They're going to be put to death ... It's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death....We're happy with our laws on our books."

Fact: "The three were convicted under Texas' capital murder statute...The state has a hate crime statute, but it is vague." LA Times, 10/12/00.
"The original Texas hate-crimes bill, signed into law by Democrat Ann Richards, boosted penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry. As Gore correctly noted, Bush maneuvered to make sure a new hate-crimes law related to the Byrd killing did not make it to his desk. The new bill would have included homosexuals among the groups covered, which would have been anathema to social conservatives in the state." Washington Post, 10/12/00

3. Bush: bragged that in Texas he was signing up children for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as "fast as any other state."

Fact: "As governor he fought to unsuccessfully to limit access to the program. He would have limited its coverage to children with family incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level, though federal law permitted up to 200 percent. The practical effect of Bush's efforts would have been to exclude 200,000 of the 500,000 possible enrollees." Washington Post, 10/12/00

4. Bush: "He [Gore] is for registration of guns."

Fact: "Gore actually favors licensing for new handgun purchasers but nothing as vast as registering all guns." Salon, 10/12/00

5. Bush: Said he found Gore's tendency to exaggerate "an issue in trying to defend my tax relief package. There was some exaggeration about the numbers" in the first debate.

Fact: "No, there wasn't, and Bush himself acknowledged that the next day on ABC's Good Morning America when Charlie Gibson pinned him on it." Salon, 10/12/00

6. Bush: "I felt during his debate with Senator [Bill] Bradley saying he [Gore] authored the EITC [earned-income tax credit] when it didn't happen."

Fact: "Actually, Gore had claimed to have authored an 'expansion of the earned-income tax credit,' which he did in 1991." Salon, 10/12/00

7. Fact: Gore noted that Texas "ranks 49th out of the 50 states in healthcare in children with healthcare, 49th for women with healthcare and 50th for families with healthcare"

Bush: "You can quote all the numbers you want but I'm telling you we care about our people in Texas. We spent a lot of money to make sure people get healthcare in the state of Texas."

8. Fact: Gore said, "I'm no expert on the Texas procedures, but what my friends there tell me is that the governor opposed a measure put forward by Democrats in the Legislature to expand the number of children that would be covered ... And instead [he] directed the money toward a tax cut, a significant part of which went to wealthy interests."

Bush: "If he's trying to allege I'm a hardhearted person and don't care about children, he's absolutely wrong."

9. Bush: "The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They'll be put to death. A jury found them guilty."

Fact: Two of the three are being put to death. The other was given life. Bush Watch, 10/12/00

10. Bush: said he favored "equal" rights for gays and lesbians, but not "special" rights.

Fact: "Bush has supported a Texas law that allows the state to take adopted children from gay and lesbian couples to place the kids with straight couples." Salon, 10/12/00.
"Bush supports hate crime protections for other minorities! So Bush doesn't believe that gays should have the same 'special' rights in this regard as blacks, Jews, Wiccans and others. Employment discrimination? Again, Bush supports those rights for other Americans, but not gays. Military service? Bush again supports the right to military service for all qualified people--as long as they don't tell anyone they're gay. Marriage? How on earth is that a special right when every heterosexual in America already has it? But again, Bush thinks it should be out-of-bounds for gays. What else is there? The right to privacy? Nuh-huh. Bush supports a gays-only sodomy law in his own state that criminalizes consensual sex in private between two homosexuals." New Republic, 10/13/00

11. Bush. "We ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling."

Fact: The Texas Department of Public Safety has just this year begun keeping detailed information about the race and sex of all people stopped by its troopers, the sixth year Bush has been in office. Salon, 10/12/00

12. Bush got caught not giving the full story on Texas air pollution laws. He was correct in saying the 1999 utility deregulation bill he signed into law had mandatory emissions standards.

Fact: "What was missing, as Gore's campaign pointed out, was that many more non-utility industrial plants are not mandated to reduce air quality. The issue is an important one because Texas ranks near the bottom in air-quality standards. Bush instead approved a voluntary program allowing grandfathered oil, coal, and other industrial plants to cut down on pollution." Boston Globe, 10/12/00

pearly-abraham.tripod.com...

5 more hear:

Lie No. 1: “My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.”

The decision for war with Iraq was made long ago, the intervening time having been spent in an attempt to create the political climate in which US troops could be deployed for an attack. According to press reports, most recently March 16 in the Baltimore Sun, at one of the first National Security Council meetings of his presidency, months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Bush expressed his determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his willingness to commit US ground troops to an attack on Iraq for that purpose. All that was required was the appropriate pretext—supplied by September 11, 2001.

Lie No. 2: “For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war.”

The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined with “no-fly” zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of brutal oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical supplies and other vital necessities is responsible for the death of more than a million Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials who headed the oil-for-food program resigned in protest over the conditions created in Iraq by the sanctions. The CIA used the inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into UNSCOM, the original inspections program. The CIA’s aim was to spy on Iraq’s top officials and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.

Lie No. 3: “The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament...”

Iraq has never “defied” a Security Council resolution since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the dictates of the UN body, although frequently under protest or with reservations, because many of the resolutions involve gross violations of Iraqi sovereignty. From 1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the destruction of the vast bulk of the chemical and biological weapons, as well as delivery systems, which Iraq accumulated (with the assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and they also destroyed all of Iraq’s facilities for making new weapons.

Lie No. 4: “Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.”

According to the Washington Post of March 16, referring to the 1991-1998 inspection period: “[U]nder UN supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. UN inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons.”

Lie No. 5: “The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

The Washington Post article cited above noted that CIA officials were concerned “about whether administration officials have exaggerated intelligence in a desire to convince the American public and foreign governments that Iraq is violating United Nations prohibitions against chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and long-range missile systems.” The article quoted “a senior intelligence analyst” who said the inspectors could not locate weapons caches “because there may not be much of a stockpile.”

Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, who resigned from the Blair government Monday in protest over the decision to go to war without UN authorization, declared, “Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term.” Even if Iraq is concealing some remnants of its 1980s arsenal, these would hardly deserve Bush’s lurid description, since they are primitive and relatively ineffective. “Some of the most lethal weapons ever devised” are those being unleashed by the United States on Iraq: cruise missiles, smart bombs, fuel-air explosives, the 10,000-pound “daisy-cutter” bomb, the 20,000-pound MOAB just tested in Florida. In addition, the US has explicitly refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons.

www.wsws.org...

Sorry, those posts were off topic.

And this was very nearly a one line post. Time to go to bed!

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by merryxmas
Yep, especially since nobody as of yet has been able to provide me a link proving Bush told the truth.

Sorry, but it does not work this way. The person making a accusation is the one who need to provide proof. If you are accusing Bush of lying then prove it. Otherwise its like someone in court NOT having the presumption of innocence. You have to prove someone is guilty and not vice-versa.

Actually, it does work that way. Since you are making the claim that Bush is telling the truth then prove it. This isn't court, this is an internet forum. If that is too difficult to understand then here is one easier. Since you are making the accusation that Carter is lying prove it. If you cannot then your accusation is groundless.

It's all Bush aggrandizing syndrome.

I don't like a lot of things about Bush's policies but he is not a lier so your statement is moot if it was directed towards me.


Prove it.

Very important post OP. thank you for alerting me to this.i will read it carefully.Seems like we have a disinfo agent in this thread...I wonder who it is?A cookie to anyone who guesses!
DWT

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
I guess their info is biased and inaccurate. The CIA does not torture people unless you call having panties on your head and being put in a cold cell torture.

Yeah, there's no other better way to force someone to talk other than making them wearing panties on their head.

How about the induced suffocations, drowning, and sleep depravation. Does that count as torture? Would holding someone under water till they drown, and then revive them count as torture, or will you still believe they're using women's panties to make them talk?

Originally posted by Operation AJAX
And if not then why all the schenagins to make sure it was leaglly defensable.

Why!!??
Because of all the looney leftists who want to do nothing but sue and drag every decision into the courts.

At any rate I ask you would any of this be allowed if you were in prison? No, none of it would be nor would you be held indefinetly without charges being filed.

But if we cannot abide by the framework of our own Constitution and Bill of Rights how are we any better than those we decry?

Umm....because these terrorists are NOT U.S. citizens hence they do not get the same rights as U.S. citizens and rightfully so. Our Constitution only applies to citizens of the U.S. and NOT foreign terrorists!
I don't know why this is so hard to understand.