'Damn right' I personally ordered waterboarding: Bush

Originally posted by Submarines
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

So you are saying its OK for the terrorists to do what ever they want, and we should be nice to them and ask those that we have in prison for their help. So then they can excersise their 5th ammendment privilage.

Is that what I am saying?

Did I say anything remotely resembling that or are you extrapolating...presuming?

Let's try to be a little more creative....
I am sure we can come up with something agreeable to most, if not all.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Of course not. I'd be upset. Anyone would.

But how can that be? People here in the US choose to get stabbed all the time. Are you trying to tell me there is a difference between voluntarily undertaking an uncomfortable circumstance that you know is controlled, safe, and will come to a conclusion at a known time?

Let me ask you a hypothetical now:


If you're wife and children were kidnapped and you had the person responsible in your kitchen tied up to a chair and knew they'd be killed by lets say a bomb on a timer in the next 1 hour. Would you agree to waterboard the kidnapper to try and make him tell you where your family was being imprisoned with the bomb?

First of all, I would not be allowed to have a wife in my state because of the religious people that influence my government, not that I would have one anyway so that is beside the point.
Second, that is a false comparison. The kidnapper is the one that kidnapped them and therefor has the information I want. This is not exactly the case in the real world. What they have is a guy that may or may not be a kidnapper and they are going to waterboard him to get him to either admit or deny he is the kidnapper. I hope you understand the difference.

But I can play along. Why would I torture this kidnapper? How does that motivate him to tell me the truth? I can cite studies and stories that demonstrate the chances of him being honest with me are slim to none if I torture him so why would I take that route? I would actually want answers, not a safe word.

Or would you just hope he had a change of heart and decided to tell you the location on his own?

So in your world there are only two choices? Either torture him or hope he comes around? I have to say I am quite greatful that you do not work for any of our intelligence agencies if that is as far as you can think. Did you miss the article I posted where the FBI explained how they got information before the torture was used? Maybe you know better than an FBI agent speaking from experience?

I don't know what happened to my post, it just disappeard. As I was typing in the first post, one question came to mind that begs an answer; Is it more immoral to torture someone than it is to let them believe they're being tortured? Then again, to let someone believe they are being tortured is torture in and of itself. So, the question seems to negate itself.
What we must consider is cost. What is the price we're willing to pay in the ways of various liberties we're willing to sacrifice? If Americans are willing to sacrifice certain freedoms, then is it wrong for America to take certain liberties of people who might be in possession of valuable intel?

I do not condone torture or any form of mistreatment of anyone. However, if I believed that someone knew of a plot to endanger the lives of my family and loved ones, I am sure I just might be convinced to do what we necessary to get that information. It is truly the name of a sad game.
Not much of a surprise, really.

reply to post by Donkey_Dean

Doesnt surprise me, I'm sure he had a hand in the whole thing to begin with.

Are you kidding me, or are you just repeating a sound-byte from FOX News, MSNBC and CNN?

You seem to be forgetting about the Anthrax attacks, the DC Sniper and the thousands of American lives lost in both Iraq and Afghanistan (with many, many more maimed). In fact, just the phony war in Iraq has killed more Americans than every "terrorist" attack in US history. So, if we want to tally the count, those responsible for the Iraq war, are much more liable than those responsible for 9/11 (if you happen to believe that the two incidents weren't perpetrated by the same people).

So, you're wrong, along with every other tabloid outlet (MSM), as we were attacked repeatedly after 9/11 and that's not even mentioning the attacks on our liberty, freedom, way of life and Constitution, right in plain sight by those claiming that they have prevented any further attacks in the first place.

Please don't simply repeat the sound-bytes propagated by the media wing of government and instead think about things on your own, as you will clearly see that we are on far worse ground than before the attacks. Not only has more Americans died, but so has our freedoms and Constitution (though admittedly, our Constitution was under attack before Bush).

The bottom line is that Bush didn't prevent any further attacks, and in fact, more Americans died violently after 9/11, than did on 9/11 itself. This is also not even mentioning the fact that the attacks happened on his watch to begin with. Could you imagine if you were in charge of your company and your neglect resulted in a huge tragedy that all but sunk that company. Do you think you would still have a job, or do you think that you could simply boast (and lie) that it didn't happen again, thus you are some kind of heroe.


--airspoon

reply to post by Divine Strake

However, if I believed that someone knew of a plot to endanger the lives of my family and loved ones, I am sure I just might be convinced to do what we necessary to get that information.

As would I ...but it does not, in any way shape or form, make it right.

Nor should it be the policy of a freedom loving country that is looked up to and expected to help define the rules and shape the way of the world.

Bloodthirsty cutthroats or compassion, honor and integrity.
I expect my country to be bigger than me.

reply to post by airspoon


GWB and his cronies really do belong in a hospital for the criminally insane.

I admit this is just a guess but I bet from start to finish, by the time this unjust, evil invasion/war in Iraq comes to an end - George W. Bush would have been vicariously responsible for torturing more ,and killing more people, then Saddam Hussein would have if he had stayed in power for another 40 years!*

*This is based on something I heard on TV back when the Iraq war was around 2 -3 years old.
An anchorperson on a news program mentioned that when Saddam Hussein was in power, around 10 Iraqis died per month. After the Invasion/War started, that number had increased to 40 Iraqis a month. (Sidenote: it also increased, at that time, Al Qaida membership by 2,000)

PS: This is NOT including the approximately 3,000 people that died on 911 and the people who have become mortally ill from doing the clean up after 911. It also does not include the deaths in Afghanistan.

I forgot to add that Obama/Congress has to bear some responsibility for this too as the MADNESS continues under the Obama Administration.

reply to post by airspoon


So the burning bush reviles in '24', just like his husband, ice cube dick cheney

Stating that in a book is unbelievably arrogant and stupid. There is no logical reason why he would admit that in a book.

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by FoosM
The thing is, I just dont see this kind of mindset in outside of the US.

You see, the only country in the world that could financially afford to conduct terrorism and wars on terrorism, is the US.

Why do Liberals keep claiming that Americans are the most violent and terrorist people on earth while declaring the real agressors innocent?

I think your a little late out of the gate, Conservatives and Libertarians are also saying the same thing.
I mean its clear as day.

Its just plain weird. Everywhere you go around here its Liberals talking about how "brutal" the U.S. is and how tame Hussein is or how innocent Hamas is.

Oh boy, cry me a river why dont you.
Talking about bleeding hearts.


Well, Its not so weird when its true.
Hussein is tame because he is supposedly dead.
Hamas is guilty of what exactly?

Its not true no other countries could afford terrorism....thats another liberal myth we hear every day.

I know you wont watch them, but for the others...

No other country besides maybe UK, France, China, Russia and Israel, for a short period, can afford to conduct a terrorism campaign on the scale of the US. And then turn around an send troops around the world trying to squash it.

Think about it, to sustain such a military force, you need enemies.
If you cant find any, you CREATE them.

wXJa5O46K98

Im sorry, but the US has become officially the "bad guy"
the "evil Empire". And the people they are fighting, are the "rebels".



Thank you US citizens for putting so much of your hard earned money into
finding new and unique ways to kill us all.

reply to post by rusethorcain


I'm not really sure what you are saying, hence my extrapolation.

I'm also suprised i didn't get called out on the 5th ammendment statement. I hope you aren't going to give them rights under our constitution.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
If the method wasn't banned by the Justice Department until afterwords, then how was it a crime? How can you break a law that didn't exist until after? Or can I write someone a ticket for speeding before speed limits were instituted, too?

The methods have be banned for decades. The Justice Department, in this particular case the Office of Legal Counsel, does not get to rule what is lawful or not, it can only interpret the law and advise and act according to that interpretation. If that interpretation is erroneous then the conduct based on the interpretation is legally questionable.

Only the Courts can rule on its lawfulness and on these matters they have, several times, ruled against many of the methods employed by the administration(s), like in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions applied to the detainees.

The Qur'an:
Torture in this world:

Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides..."

Qur'an (8:12) - "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them."

Qur'an (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"
SOURCE: www.thereligionofpeace.com...
If quoting the Koran and the muslim terrorists stand on tortour is anti-islamic then don't be muslim.....

So the muslim terrorist combatants ONLY got waterboarded, until they change their stance on tortour THEN will I care about them getting a nice little swim in the park. Get back to me when the terrorist don't want to cut off all the infidels (you and me everyone reading this who isn't muslim) fingers and limbs, then bleed you out, then behead you when they DON'T want to do that to people who DON'T believe what they do then will i stand up against waterboarding them, get back to me when they JUST SUDDENLY change their mind after THOUSANDS of years.

Originally posted by Submarines
I hope you aren't going to give them rights under our constitution.

The Constitution doesn’t ‘give’ anyone — including Americans — any rights. The purpose of the Constitution is to prohibit the federal government from infringing upon or interfering with people’s preexisting rights.

People’s rights don’t come from the government or from documents that create governments, the rights exist independently of government.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


IDK what you think waterboarding is, but the method you describe IS waterboarding.

Originally posted by thecinic
The Qur'an:
Torture in this world:

You know as well as anyone else that we can post quotes just as vicious and violent from the bible but we cannot say all Christians are evil torturers so why even start that game? It is easy to pick and choose, especially when you never read the full context.

reply to post by aptness


I was speaking in the prosecutorial sense.

Originally posted by FoosM
Im sorry, but the US has become officially the "bad guy"
the "evil Empire". And the people they are fighting, are the "rebels".

And I was under the impression all along the Empire were the good guys and the Rebels were the bad guys. Let's see, it started with the Senate which is like the UN. Everyone has a representative there but nothing gets acomplished due to the bureaucracy. The Emperor wanted to break up the Senate (UN) and allow each system to govern themselves albeit with him as a dictator but a benign dictator who's forces collect taxes and keep peace and order in the galaxy from organized crime and war and who promotes free trade and capitolism. Kind of like the President of the United States. So you are saying that America is the Empire which is absolutely correct and that is a good thing. The Rebels are those who wish for the UN as the head of a NWO. I'll take the Empire any day.

I'm just going to say the obvious here...because hey, why not?

I don't care who's doing the torturing... it needs to stop

Edit: I'd like to elaborate. Through out this post I've seen people trying to justify wrong actions because of other wrong actions. Here's the deal... if a government is doing wrong actions to stop wrong actions...that will cause more wrong actions. It's a cycle. So who is going to stop the violence? Our government? The middle east?... Probably no one because it seems like everybody doesn't get that more violence will not stop violence, it will cause more. That's it... I'm going to Antartica to live with the penguins... Away from all the violent dense people debating about what wrong action is justified by some else's wrong action.

My point? Torture, violence, and war is not justifying anybody...It's causing more innocent people to die. There is no such thing as protection in a hateful world. So stop pretending like what the government is doing is protecting us.

Originally posted by airspoon

There we have it, a confession to war crimes, though I doubt that any justice will ever be served. We have prosecuted many war/t criminals for much less.

Sadly, he can confess to torture and be confident that nothing will come of it. I guess it just goes to show the injutices of our times. A tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant... as is both a common and war criminal.

What makes this even more sad, is that this is hardly the worst thing that Bush and his cronies have allegedly done. I think we would be sitting pretty if this was the extent (suspected) of the Bush crimes. Unfortunately, this pales in comparison to 90% of the things that I suspect he has done.

At the very most, this is a direct slap in the face to our brave soldiers and their families, to which Bush's actions have put them in harms way... again. What more do we need?


--airspoon

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

edit on 4-11-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)

Indeed. We just can't count on the puppets in power to prosecute him... they've got their hand dipping in the same mud, anyways.

The "moral order" of the army, and the whole government as well, is completely broken. i tend to think that only a major defeat would cleanse the US from their astronomical level of corruption and imbalance, but who would hope that? And which country is better anyways? Only a massive popular revolt would get you (us) out of this mess. Something big enough to create a true balance of power, and to shatter the establishment altogether...

Military mens and womens here can work on that, since a bit of insurrection is always good in times of major crookery... but only with the collaboration and respect of civilians.

reply to post by airspoon


It is all conjuncture but I really feel the true agenda was Iran and still is. I feel a Co Intel Pro type agenda has garnered great political might through the constant use of propaganda via Fox and others in this country and that 2012 will see us in Iran. If I am wrong then I imagine Bush was sincere and did do his best to combat terror and keep us safe. Despite a war on terror having the outcome of just causing more terror. I think that if it had really been about Osama Bin Laden then the CIA that was already on the ground in Afghanistan could have taken him out instead of training the Northern Alliance and giving him months to escape. We got plenty of guys who would have never stopped, until he was dead.

If 2012 does see us on the ground in Iran then it seems pretty clear to me that not only did Bush have his hands in 911 but that parts of our own intelligence groups likely put him into office illegally and have been carefully executing a very complex plan for many years. That said you can be a stooly without knowing the entire agenda, so maybe he didnt know the towers were coming down.

Sorry if I am rambling. Just like any gung ho mug, I like a good war as much as the next guy. But what in the hell has happened to our freedoms here. What the hell are we fighting for? A way of life that no longer exists?

Trust me Iran is gonna burn like no other in history! If the Iranians knew what was coming they would all just walk away!