Carter says U.S tortures prisoners

Originally posted by merryxmas
Actually, it does work that way.

Umm...no it doesn't! Perhaps it works this way in other countries but not in the U.S.
If you are making an accusation, you have to prove it. Its not the other way around.

If you accuse your neighbor of raping your wife, you have to prove he did it. Do you see the fallacy in your logic?

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan


Still very much looking forward to you defending the Bush 'lies' I posted, or did you just decide it would be better to ignore them and hope no-one noticed?

If you like, I can find you another batch and we can start a new thread called, 'Bush Don't Lie Y'all' [add slight Texan drawl].

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

Who said there is no better way?

How about the induced suffocations

Never heard of this one and I don't know what it is or even if its true so I cannot comment.

drowning

If they drowned people they would be dead. If you mean waterboarding then NOT torture.

sleep depravation

Definitately NOT torture.

Would holding someone under water till they drown, and then revive them count as torture

Show me a article showing this is true. I am still debating whether or not this is torture.

Originally posted by RogerT
Still very much looking forward to you defending the Bush 'lies' I posted, or did you just decide it would be better to ignore them and hope no-one noticed?

Not ignoring what you posted but I am not going to respond to every accusation you posted. Its just way to much and will take up to much time.

However, if you would like to pick out 1 or 2 of them, I would be happy to discredit the false accusations.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

 

Still very much looking forward to you defending the Bush 'lies' I posted, or did you just decide it would be better to ignore them and hope no-one noticed?

If you like, I can find you another batch and we can start a new thread called, 'Bush Don't Lie Y'all' [add slight Texan drawl].

Well, one of your sources is the "World Socialist Web Site". Sorry, but I'm going to think that their take on Bush will be a bit "slanted".

Way to go for not reading. It's simply a transcript of parts of GB's speech pre Iraq invasion, (with some commentary which is clearly slanted - but not without a tad of fact)

-----------------------------------
deleted quote of post directly above

[edit on 11/10/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

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.

Or ramming broom sticks up the anus of Muslim men in front of one another. Or waterboarding which is incredible in itself. Maybe sewing needles under the finger nails, electrocution of the testicles, and severe beatings don't count either. Genius, you know? Yeah, what's torture? We're good guys, right? Yeah.. Right..

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by merryxmas
Actually, it does work that way.

Umm...no it doesn't! Perhaps it works this way in other countries but not in the U.S.
If you are making an accusation, you have to prove it. Its not the other way around.

If you accuse your neighbor of raping your wife, you have to prove he did it. Do you see the fallacy in your logic?

Do you see the fallacy in your logic? Do you first of all see that this isn't. I repeat this isn't the USofA. This is cyberspace. This isn't a court it's a forum. Do you also comprehend that you were the one to make the initial accusation? Or did you conveniently forget that? Since you have such a short memory span I'll remind you.

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

Your accusation right there in black and white. Now prove it. If you are making an accusation then, you prove it. Your own words.

And since you are the one making claims that contradict common knowledge, yes you prove it. Since Bush has been proven to lie then you prove to me that he's telling the truth. Oh wait.. someone in this very thread already provided you with multiple examples of him lying which is exactly what you asked for, with links and you conveniently skipped over it. Ya know, digging your head in the sand isn't going to make the truth disappear it just makes you look foolish.


There ya go. You made accusations that you didn't back up yet you believe proving accusations only works one way and yet you can't even do that aspect of it. Pretty weak copout imo.

If you accuse your neighbor of raping your wife, you have to prove he did it. Do you see the fallacy in your logic?

We're not talking about a neighbor raping someone's wife we're talking about a person who has been proven to lie. We're talking about common knowledge here. We're talking about someone who has been proven to lie on multiple occasions so yes, when someone is known to be a liar then you are going to have to prove to me that they are telling the truth. This is very basic logic here.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by merryxmas]

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

However, if you would like to pick out 1 or 2 of them, I would be happy to discredit the false accusations.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]

Let's pick 2 at random and then call it quits, as this really isn't the thread topic.

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 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


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

first one researched by washington post, second one GW admitted the lie/mistake on GMA.

I doubt there exists a senior politician in the world who doesn't lie or 'intentionally stretch the truth' as a matter of course. Claiming Dubya is above all of that is a no-win stance imo.

Of course it could be the guy is just a few marbles short of a full bag, and most of the time he's not aware of much that comes out of his mouth. I often think there's a wire in his ear telling him what to say.

Originally posted by merryxmas
Do you see the fallacy in your logic?

Why do you keep parroting everything I say?

Do you first of all see that this isn't. I repeat this isn't the USofA. This is cyberspace. This isn't a court it's a forum.

HUH?
So are you saying because this is a forum nothing has to be based in truth or fact?

Do you also comprehend that you were the one to make the initial accusation? Or did you conveniently forget that?
Your accusation right there in black and white. Now prove it.

Umm....that was my opinion and how do you prove sarcasm?

Since Bush has been proven to lie

But he hasn't. Still waiting for evidence......

someone in this very thread already provided you with multiple examples of him lying which is exactly what you asked for

Umm....no they didn't.
Someones opinion is not fact. There is a difference you know.

Originally posted by RogerT
I doubt there exists a senior politician in the world who doesn't lie or 'intentionally stretch the truth' as a matter of course. Claiming Dubya is above all of that is a no-win stance imo.

Of course it could be the guy is just a few marbles short of a full bag, and most of the time he's not aware of much that comes out of his mouth. I often think there's a wire in his ear telling him what to say.

Perhaps we should start a new thread about the topics you suggested because they don't apply to foreign policy, Iraq or Iran which is where this thread is going and we don't want to hijack this thread. Also, it will give me time to do a little research and respond to your accusations about Bush because foreign policy and popular national issues are my strong points, so I am not fully knowledeable in these two topics.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]

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.

I refer you to the CIA manual on interrogations distributed till 1984 released through the freedom of information act. Their own manual says they do. page 8

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Redge777]

Why do you keep parroting everything I say?

Easiest way to show you is by showing the fallacy in your own words.

HUH?

So are you saying because this is a forum nothing has to be based in truth or fact?

Again. no. I am saying what I am saying. That a man who has been proven to lie will have to have his words been proven to be the truth. The very basic concept you are unable to grasp is still eluding you.

Umm....that was my opinion and how do you prove sarcasm?

Nice try on that save.

But he hasn't.

Still waiting for evidence......

See the above examples you are still ignoring...

Umm....no they didn't.

Someones opinion is not fact.

There is a difference you know.

Yes they did. It's quite clear you haven't even checked the examples because if you had you would see that these are indeed facts and not opinions. If you ask for something, as in you asking for links for facts where he lied, and you are provided with it then you ignore what you asked for it makes for quite a pedantic charade.

Your opinion pupported as fact is not a fact. There is a difference you do realize.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by merryxmas]

The New York Times uncovered memoranda of secret Justice Department legal opinions regarding methods of interrogating enemy combatants. What interrogation practices were deemed allowable?

-Middle seat in coach on flight between Jacksonville, FL and Las Vegas, with stopover in Chicago

-Setting prisoner atop dunk tank, asking one question, tossing baseball

-Repeating everything suspect says in mocking, nasally voice

-Using the Flegamajunka Technique, which is pretty much anything the interrogator needs it to be

-Conducting the interrogation while eating a really big, delicious piece of cheesecake

-Water/sand/sawdust/
cobra/concrete/glue/vodka-boarding

-Anything featured on the previous night's episode of 24

-Asking politely

And my source? Well, that's easy!!

www.theonion.com...

reply to post by Redge777


Cheers, was just about to post a few links.

Can't hurt though I suppose:

“…Interrogations conducted under compulsion or duress are especially likely to involve illegality and to entail damaging consequences to KUBARK.. Therefore prior Headquarters approval at the KUDOVE level must be obtained for the interrogation of any source against his will and under any of the following circumstances:
1: If bodily harm is to be inflicted
2: If medical chemical or electrical methods or materials are to be used to produce acquiescence 3. ….”

So all they needed was approval to torture.
From pdf document in link. Two more pdf avail www.gwu.edu...

Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual 1983:
www.gwu.edu...
www.gwu.edu...

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues

Or ramming broom sticks up the anus of Muslim men in front of one another. Or waterboarding which is incredible in itself. Maybe sewing needles under the finger nails, electrocution of the testicles, and severe beatings don't count either. Genius, you know? Yeah, what's torture? We're good guys, right? Yeah.. Right..

The President is entrusted with protecting the citizens of this country. If the Commander-in-chief needs to shove a broomstick up some savage's ass to get information to do so...I'm fine with that. I'll buy the broom. He took an oath to defend this country by all means necessary. These terrorists are monsters who do not follow the Geneva Convention and therefore do not deserve it's protection. They randomly kill innocents to progess their twisted beliefs. The same bleeding heart libs who cry about water boarding are the same folks who leak vital security information and cut the nuts off every legislative attempt the White House tries to make to protect us. These are the same 'repsonsible' Americans who will point the finger at Bush when the next 911 hits because he didn't do enough. This bull# gets old folks. Wake up and smell the coffee. This isn't your Mummy and Daddy's tie dyed, pot smoking world anymore. These people will torture YOU just because you are the infidel that they learned about in grade school.

Originally posted by DrBedlam

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues

Or ramming broom sticks up the anus of Muslim men in front of one another. Or waterboarding which is incredible in itself. Maybe sewing needles under the finger nails, electrocution of the testicles, and severe beatings don't count either. Genius, you know? Yeah, what's torture? We're good guys, right? Yeah.. Right..

The President is entrusted with protecting the citizens of this country. If the Commander-in-chief needs to shove a broomstick up some savage's ass to get information to do so...I'm fine with that. I'll buy the broom. He took an oath to defend this country by all means necessary. These terrorists are monsters who do not follow the Geneva Convention and therefore do not deserve it's protection. They randomly kill innocents to progess their twisted beliefs. The same bleeding heart libs who cry about water boarding are the same folks who leak vital security information and cut the nuts off every legislative attempt the White House tries to make to protect us. These are the same 'repsonsible' Americans who will point the finger at Bush when the next 911 hits because he didn't do enough. This bull# gets old folks. Wake up and smell the coffee. This isn't your Mummy and Daddy's tie dyed, pot smoking world anymore. These people will torture YOU just because you are the infidel that they learned about in grade school.

+1

Originally posted by DrBedlam

The President is entrusted with protecting the citizens of this country. If the Commander-in-chief needs to shove a broomstick up some savage's ass to get information to do so...I'm fine with that.

The problem is when that guy goes waddling home, he tells all his friends and neighbors about the evil treatment, then that treatment actually hurts the US because soon 1000s hate us.

If we kill him it is just as bad, every person killed their are 5 family members that now hate the US.

Not to mention that torture is terribly unreliable, and it is accepted it does not work. Building a rapore with a person yields better results, yet takes a little longer. more flies with honey, actually works in interrogation also.

So your comment is not only wrong, it shows a very uniformed view point on the subject, if you just go around brutalizing people you do not help the US.

And would not your willingness to treat people this way make you a savage? At least in the eyes of the enemy? Torture also breaks the possible building of understanding or identification with our troops trying to win hearts and minds.

Originally posted by DrBedlam
The President is entrusted with protecting the citizens of this country. If the Commander-in-chief needs to shove a broomstick up some savage's ass to get information to do so...

Ah yes... because all Muslims are subhuman savages aren't they...

Oh! And of course, all Muslims are part of 'Al Qaeda' (whatever the hell that means these days).

And your president isn't interested in protecting the citizens of your country... he works for Corporations.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Frankly, I don't care what other countries think about the reputation of the U.S.

Which is why your opinion should be ignored.

And would you please, for the love of all things holy, grow the hell up.