Red Cross Finds Bush Administration Guilty of War Crimes

reply to post by WhatTheory


I was going after your first point!

Originally posted by mental modulator
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

I was going after your first point!

I know, but your point in your previous thread was that the 'secret report' aspect was my ONLY indication that the story is bogus. I just pointed out that there are three major reasons and not just one.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by mental modulator
So this "secret report" means that the accusations are completely false, %100 , based on the "evidence" being in a "secret report"??? That is hardly logical...

I'm just saying you guys should consider better arguments- your current argument is about the same logic as this...

The logic of a liberal who figures all the terrorist at GITMO are innocent because the charges and the accusations are "secret".

No, what is NOT logical is your argument because apparently you did not read the entire post and only picked one little part out in a lame attempt to make a point. It was more than just the 'secret report' aspect. For your benefit I will repeat myself:

First of all, where is this 'secret report'? Oh right, it's secret, just like all the anonymous sources we read about here on ATS with topics like aliens eating babies and such.

Second, it's funny how this comes to light just as this dudes books is available for sale. Coincidence?? Hmmm.......

Thirdly and most importantly, most of the claims are based on interviewing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. What do you think they are going to say? Oh, we love it here. No, they will say whatever it takes.

Double down thumbs for the story being obvious propaganda for some retard who wants to sell a book and is trying to further some sort of agenda. Sad and pathetic.

Second point... I was refering to SOS and his comments upon your post...

However now that we are engaged...

None of your 3 points conclude anything what so ever. Sure they are great for rhetorical arguments...

On your second point --- Just because a man is selling a book does not mean that the merits of the book are false. If so how?

On your third point - I agree that the detainees would probably not say
, hell Cuba is great. On the other hand just because they would certainly NOT give rave reviews of a six by twelve cell does not mean that there is no merit to the red crosses accusations!

If you disagree go for it- how on earth do you come to the conclusion that
every shred of evidence citied in this "secret report" is false?

If you saw said secret report would it still be a falsification?

1.I suspect you would provide a new argument solely because you support the president

2.or because you could gave half a rats ass in regards to the treatment of these detainees.

Why would you not state this if this is the case? You can use these as opinions and be right %100... I cannot argue either...

But your thinking is not deep on this -

lack of evidence does not prove TRUE innocence!

A mountain of evidence does not prove TRUE guilt!

The truth is supposed to reflect reality -- There is no evidence to dismiss the entire "secret report" based on your three points! Reality does not hinge on speculation--
reality just is!

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by mental modulator
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

I was going after your first point!

I know, but your point in your previous thread was that the 'secret report' aspect was my ONLY indication that the story is bogus. I just pointed out that there are three major reasons and not just one.

Look I am an American %100 I have had a member of my family involved in every single "war" since the civil war. I understand the need for national defense... However I do that kindly to our president lowering our standard of wartime time civility!

If my kids or your kids go fight in the next war I would hate to see them treated sub WWII standards because we effectively lowered the bar!

You think about that - we are the Super Power - we have always tried to promote freedom and democracy...

Now we have a base in Cuba that reflects a similar policy
to that of Saddam...

At the same time we are trying to encourage Iraqis to stop taking offenders out into the dessert to punish who ever, because there is no concept of legal repercussions .

In this one regard we should take the high road - My bloodline fought for a higher ideal then----- we can do anything because we can conceal it!

That is for the NAZIS
, THE BATHIST and the VC. I think America is way better then this!

[edit on 14-7-2008 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by mental modulator
None of your 3 points conclude anything what so ever. Sure they are great for rhetorical arguments...

And neither does this 'report' conclude anything especially given my three points. This report is nothing but rhetoric. If someone is going to make accussations like this report does, you need to have some bulletproof evidence to support your case and not just some rhetoric thrown together in a 'secret' report.

or because you could gave half a rats ass in regards to the treatment of these detainees.

You're correct. I don't give a rats ass about these terrorists. However don't act like they are mistreated. These terrorists have it good at Gitmo with everything from playtime, 3 meals a day, religious time, hot and cold water and medical care which is probably better than some citizens.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

No, what is NOT logical is your argument because apparently you did not read the entire post and only picked one little part out in a lame attempt to make a point. It was more than just the 'secret report' aspect. For your benefit I will repeat myself:

First off, showing that part of your post is ridiculous isn't "lame". You typed it and believe it, and he was pointing out that it was not a good standard for looking at the story. However, I will humor you and go through all of your reasons.

First of all, where is this 'secret report'? Oh right, it's secret, just like all the anonomous sources we read about here on ATS with topics like aliens eating babies and such.

In addition to what MM said, I would add this. I guess then its fare to assume that any secret report by the government must be untrue. I suppose then that you will also be very skeptical of all of the new intelligence suggesting Iran is building nukes right? They come from secret sources. Also, you probably don't believe the NIST report regarding 9-11, because their report used evidence not released to the public.

I'm pretty sure what the report means by a secret report is that it was only shared with the CIA, as opposed to the public. If you read the article, you would realize that yours doubts are answered, as several CIA officials confirmed that the practices mentioned in the report are true.

Second, it's funny how this comes to light just as this dudes books is available for sale. Coincidence?? Hmmm.......

Fair enough. I also assume you find it suspicious that after not being heard from in years, Bin Laden released a tape 4 days before the 2004 election, which helped Bush's message of having to get tough on terror. Coincidence?? Hmmm.......

Obviously, this rationale can be used against almost any argument. I find it funny that Bush supporters will use arguments such as these when it favors them, yet refuse to listen to the exact same type of claims made against the administration.

Does the fact that a woman is releasing a book on the subject cast doubt on its truth? Maybe. But consider that she doesn't even work for the Red Cross, the Red Cross has not denied the information, and even CIA officials say it is true, and you start to see that this logic doesn't add up. What does the Red Cross or the CIA officials have to gain from this book?

Thirdly and most importantly, most of the claims are based on interviewing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. What do you think they are going to say? Oh, we love it here. No, they will say whatever it takes.

Ok. By this standard, we can't trust any government investigations into themselves, because they would never rat themselves out. 9-11 report and NIST investigation, out the window. The Warren Commission, gone. The Waco investigation, garbage. Well of course you won't believe that. Again, this shows your double standard.

The report was again backed up by CIA officials, so it wasn't just detainee testimony. Aside from that is the fact that Bush already admitted waterboarding was used, and the Red Cross thinks that violates international law.

Double down thumbs for the story being obvious propaganda for some retard who wants to sell a book and is trying to further some sort of agenda. Sad and pathetic.

And double down to you for being hypocritical in your accepting of evidence. I never want to hear you again get upset with someone who accuses government reports of being propaganda.

Not only have I already explained why this source is credible, but as Dimensional said in the OP, an army general, the FBI, and constitutional lawyers are all saying they are committing war crimes. Instead of arguing against the specific claims, you lump it all together as propaganda. This contributes nothing to the discussion, and only proves that you are uninterested in the truth, and instead only want to further your agenda.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Grambler]

Originally posted by WhatTheory

or because you could gave half a rats ass in regards to the treatment of these detainees.

You're correct. I don't give a rats ass about these terrorists. However don't act like they are mistreated. These terrorists have it good at Gitmo with everything from playtime, 3 meals a day, religious time, hot and cold water and medical care which is probably better than some citizens.

Fair !!! And a much more solid stance on your behalf!

I will be more forthcoming as you have been!

I am here on this thread debating because I think the indef... detainment of ANYBODY without a trial or transparency is the stuff of Fascism. I am of the opinion that this practice needs to stop immediately as it is not the American way!

Lets just say president OBAMA uses this legal void to detain you for whatever reason...
Lets just say for instance he or a future president deems your activities a terrorist threat ---
First off what would prevent your indefinite Cuban Sunburn???
Really what recourse would you have?
You have no rights if you are determined to be a terrorist.
Would you tell the walls or the MPs
Could our posting activities be considered terrorist-- Yes!
Why??? because the only criteria needed is to be suspect.

What is to stop a "CRAZY" future president from detaining any body for anything?

You tell me?

Your efforts do not help this aspect...

Finally these similar tactics were put into practice long before Hitler came to power and
I am certain most PRE WWII Patriotic German would not have condoned the Holocaust!
However like you they only saw the beneficial side to imprisonment without representation. First off if there was no proof needed which provided absolute power to the government.

( don't Republicans desire less power for the feds?)

I am making an effect to thwart the slim but possible future outcome!

That is were I am coming from...

Originally posted by jsobecky

Is there another source for this "story"?

I'd like to know which "Red Cross" said this. Was it the American Red Cross? Or the very biased International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement?

My guess is it was the latter.

Biased, eh? I worked for those guys for some time and it seems that you know better then I do...

If you ever get the chance (which I doubt) to experience in real life what they are all about, only then you will be in position to make statement like that

Originally posted by Grambler
And double down to you for being hypocritical in your accepting of evidence.

I don't see how it's hypocritical. You may have a point if only 1 of the 3 things I mentioned were the only problem. However, where your logic fails is that this particlular story has 3 major problems and taken together they give a valid reason to be suspicious of this report.

Not only have I already explained why this source is credible

Well, if you explained why it's credible then it must be true.

This contributes nothing to the discussion, and only proves that you are uninterested in the truth, and instead only want to further your agenda.

Just because my opinion is different from yours does not mean I have a agenda or uninterested in the truth.
Hey, you are allowed your interpretation of my criticism. However, I see no truth here and I have no agenda except to point out obvious propaganda or false and misleading information. You just blindly follow the herd because it happens to agree with your opinions.

Originally posted by mental modulator
Lets just say president OBAMA uses this legal void to detain you for whatever reason...
Lets just say for instance he or a future president deems your activities a terrorist threat ---
First off what would prevent your indefinite Cuban Sunburn???

Well, since I am a U.S. citizen, I have all the rights provided to me under of the Constitution. All I do is provide proof of citizenship and I'm good to go.

You have no rights if you are determined to be a terrorist.

Not true, only non U.S. citizens have no rights. Big difference.

Could our posting activities be considered terrorist

No, because U.S. citizens have rights under the Constitution.

What is to stop a "CRAZY" future president from detaining any body for anything?
You tell me?

The Constitution.

Your efforts do not help this aspect...

Of course it helps because why would you want to accept as truth something which is false?
Because of the three reasons I stated, this 'report' is suspect.
Not everything which agrees with your point of view is true. To me, this report is obviously some sort of a money making scheme for someone with an agenda.

I have in front of me currently a secret report prepared by a collaborative effort of 4 different intelligence agencies that offers what it calls hard proof of international terrorism carried out by the USA for the past 5 administrations.

I pulled it from under my gerbil habitat to count the numbers.

I will now replace it to it's earned position as independent investigation.

Different stanza - same tired diatribe.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

I don't see how it's hypocritical. You may have a point if only 1 of the 3 things I mentioned were the only problem. However, where your logic fails is that this particlular story has 3 major problems and taken together they give a valid reason to be suspicious of this report.

Congratulations! You officially mad me laugh with this post. I love how you call Mental "lame" for only answering one part of your post, yet that is exactly what you do here. You ask for someone to address your three points, and when I do, you don't respond to them. I guess that means by your definition, you are officially "lame".

You say I would be right about you being a hypocrite if you believed in things that fell into all three of these categories. Well again, that means that you can't believe in any government investigation into itself, or any intelligence that says we should attack someone. I'll give two examples of things that if you believe would make you a hypocrite, the 9-11 investigation and intelligence that says Iran is building nuclear weapons.

Heres why. Your three points are as follows, first, we can't trust it if it secret. Well, obviously both my two examples were done in secret. The 9-11 commission was privy to evidence that won't be released, and met behind doors with people (like bush and cheney) and Iran intelligence is obviously a secret.

Next reason is a book is coming out. This is just a claim saying the person telling the story has something to gain. Again, Bush had something to gain about the 9-11 commission (to not get in trouble) and intelligence on Iran, he can go to the war that he has wanted.

The third is it was based on prisoner testimony so it can't be trusted. Well, the same with Iran and 9-11, why would the government admit they were wrong? So as you can see, if you listen to either of these two things, your a hypocrite.

Well, if you explained why it's credible then it must be true.

I cited people like the CIA officials that agree the story is true, also the fact that the woman who wrote the book isn't a member of the Red Cross, and the fact that a general from the army, the FBI, and constitutional lawyers agree. All of these specifically addressed your three points, but instead of acknowledging it or even responding to it, you ignore it and make it seem as if I have just asserted that the its credible. For shame.

Just because my opinion is different from yours does not mean I have a agenda or uninterested in the truth.
Hey, you are allowed your interpretation of my criticism. However, I see no truth here and I have no agenda except to point out obvious propaganda or false and misleading information. You just blindly follow the herd because it happens to agree with your opinions.

Thats the problem. You claim this is blatant propaganda, and when someone takes the time to attempt to thoughtfully disprove your reasoning, you ignore them. The reason it seems that you are pushing an agenda is that all of your reasons as to what makes something propaganda is used by the very government that you constantly defend, but if people refuse to listen to that evidence and claim it is propaganda, you don't feel its justified.

The point is you are trying to have it both ways. I think that anyone who has read this little exchange of ours can see that you have a double standard, and I think that makes it seem as if you aren't really interested in the truth.

Oh, and the last thing someone in your hypocritical shoes should do is accuse someone of following the herd.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by mental modulator
Lets just say president OBAMA uses this legal void to detain you for whatever reason...
Lets just say for instance he or a future president deems your activities a terrorist threat ---
First off what would prevent your indefinite Cuban Sunburn???

Well, since I am a U.S. citizen, I have all the rights provided to me under of the Constitution. All I do is provide proof of citizenship and I'm good to go.

You have no rights if you are determined to be a terrorist.

Not true, only non U.S. citizens have no rights. Big difference.

Could our posting activities be considered terrorist

No, because U.S. citizens have rights under the Constitution.

What is to stop a "CRAZY" future president from detaining any body for anything?
You tell me?

The Constitution.

Your efforts do not help this aspect...

Of course it helps because why would you want to accept as truth something which is false?

Because of the three reasons I stated, this 'report' is suspect.
Not everything which agrees with your point of view is true. To me, this report is obviously some sort of a money making scheme for someone with an agenda.

Originally posted by mental modulator
Lets just say president OBAMA uses this legal void to detain you for whatever reason...
Lets just say for instance he or a future president deems your activities a terrorist threat ---
First off what would prevent your indefinite Cuban Sunburn???

Well, since I am a U.S. citizen, I have all the rights provided to me under of the Constitution. All I do is provide proof of citizenship and I'm good to go.

You have no rights if you are determined to be a terrorist.

Not true, only non U.S. citizens have no rights. Big difference.

You should be right but you are forgetting a certain piece of modern legislation,,,

The PATRIOT ACT...

Section -- 802 -- Amendments to previous definition of "terrorism" US code 3077(1)
and 2331

I'm sorry I cannot access the full source document...

The legality of this which I studied changes the reality of your assumptions.
Section 802- Is the magic bullet to effectively silence any and all decent if it is utilized in a "bad" way.

802 broadens the spectrum of definition of a terrorist - an addendum if you will.

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are
a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or
of any State;

This can legally be interpreted in a many ways... How would you interpret this ???

Which "laws"? What "acts"?

As it is worded imagination is the only limitation I can sight...

`(B) appear to be intended--

This is the worst loophole - because a speculative argument is enough to define a person as a terrorist. The word "intended" is purely speculative -- who might be doing the speculation???

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion

sub section B - this has no definition of the word:

"influence" -- Active conversations can be legally interpreted as "influence" - Its has in past RICO cases -so legal precedence has been fulfilled...

The word coercion refers to what???

There is no definition or further addendum to this or any parts of section 802-

` (C) occur primarily within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States.''.


I guess this sort of slays your US citizen argument ... Most of the patriot act defines US citizen activity... Sadly I did not make any of this up.

As I said earlier I had the privilege of learning this in a pre law 101 class. The problem is the vagueness of these few lines - in the hands of a Fascist government the implications will effectively shred the bill of rights!

Translation: it is very easy to be deemed a "terrorist" if that is the goal of the prosecutor,,,


Once you are a deemed a "terrorist" a number of executive orders bypass and supersede the "constitution" , because the executive orders have been worded that way for expediency.

The decision rests in the "presidents" hands... Which president ???--
Do you trust every future president this much???

Like it or not these are the legal implications, they are not fair, but study on your own and you will find I am correct.

In my opinion this information reinvigorates my previous questions and augments them.
----------------------------------------------------------

Second

Either Gitmo and its policies end

or

802 and other sections of the Patriot Act need to be amended with clear definitions.

If both exist at the same time - your citing the constitution is logical and "sweet" but NOT realistic in the world of litigation.

The reality is there are many ways to get you that Permanent Cuban sunburn after all
,,,if that was the goal!

I still think that suspecting a source does not mean that all the information brought forth is false. This notion of yours is still not logical... The information can still represent truth even if the messenger is in question... If not explain to me how MY logic is flawed?

I look forward to further spirited good natured debate!







[edit on 14-7-2008 by mental modulator]

You are also wrong on the 'NO RIGHTS' issue. Every UN chartered country in the World has rights under the UN Human Rights Charter. It is the Charter for human decency.

As for your so called Constitution as G W Bush said ''Its a piece of paper'' and it means absolutely Jack S***.

Torture should be condemmed and the Leaders/Perpetrators brought to an International Court, no matter which country did the deed. For a so called defender of Human Rights, the US seems to be having double standards. I hope these people are caught, tried and rot in hell.

Dont complain if your people are tortured overseas ...... you reap what you sow.

RELATED:

(CBS/AP) Wrenching video of a teenaged Omar Khadr under interrogation by a Canadian spy service agent at Guantanamo Bay was released early Tuesday on the Internet...

He was just 15 when he was found in the rubble of a bombed-out compound - badly wounded and near death...

At one point in the interrogation, Khadr pulls off the top of orange prison uniform and shows the wounds he sustained in the firefight from six months earlier.

He complains he can't move his arms and says he had requested, but hadn't received, proper medical attention.

"They look like they're healing well to me," the agent says of the injuries.
SOURCE

Excerpts of the video, here.

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
Since when is the Red Cross a judiciary body capable of finding anybody guilty of anything?

What does that matter??? So you are also saying that the alleged criminality does not matter because the reporting body is not a judicial body?

So you would not be guilty of a hit and run accident if a civilian is the one who witnesses the event???

The civilian is not a judicial body- tough crap!!!

I guess that means that you didn't commit a crime - in fact you did not even hit the alleged car because a civilian was the witness to the accident.

Non logic --- Give us some logic and we all can have a real conversation!

Not this mouthpiece off competitive event...

Next I will give us all a list of War crimes first reported on by the red cross ---

Will you take the side of the president of IRAN on WWII because the red cross is not a judicial entity? Guess who first raised the issues of German activities?

I guess nothing is provable unless John Roberts is not there to confirm.

What do you say you look at the title of thr thread, read my post, then get a dictionary and look up "context" and then put all that together?

Originally posted by Wotan
As for your so called Constitution as G W Bush said ''Its a piece of paper'' and it means absolutely Jack S***.

Oft quoted, but it amounts to hearsay. There is no direct evidence, just an aid telling his friends he heard this; the aid never verified it.

I never thought I'd see the day a bunch of conspiracy theorists put stock in anonymous sources and secret reports. Aren't those code words for reporter making it up to push agenda?

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
I never thought I'd see the day a bunch of conspiracy theorists put stock in anonymous sources and secret reports. Aren't those code words for reporter making it up to push agenda?

You should be used to it because this is how ATS operates. Almost all threads use this type of scheme. Everything from the 9/11 conspiracy to the 2012 theories. Very rarely do you get threads with some actual real verifiable evidence.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
I never thought I'd see the day a bunch of conspiracy theorists put stock in anonymous sources and secret reports. Aren't those code words for reporter making it up to push agenda?

You should be used to it because this is how ATS operates. Almost all threads use this type of scheme. Everything from the 9/11 conspiracy to the 2012 theories.

Very rarely do you get threads with some actual real verifiable evidence.

Dude you I brought you some facts in my last post _ I took some time to continue our debate and argue my points, did my last post mess you up ???