Independent panel concludes Bush engaged in torture

[kaz]

If others fight in the gutter it is not a justification to lower our standards and join them

I've asked you this over the last couple years many times. You have no answer, yet repeat the delusion. Name one time where anyone flipped sides over this. Someone who would have been our ally and wasn't.

The reality is that anyone who would equate our water boarding to save lives with terrorists murdering people to control them are already one of two things. Our enemy, or a Democrat. And neither of them are swayed by reality.

What difference does it make? We are either a moral nation or we are not

Just because our level of torture is less than someone elses does not justify it

And that doesn't justify what I pointed out is your focus on the word "torture" which is clearly politically motivated and contradicts your statement here. You cannot in a shallowly politically motivated way advocate "morality" with any credibility.

 

[kaz]

What difference does it make? We are either a moral nation or we are not

Just because our level of torture is less than someone elses does not justify it

Oh wow the holier than thou left.....I love you guys, personal morality you dont care about, but by God we're not gonna torture people......please torture is a tool I support when needed.....I'd rather torture a person that has info to save hundreds or thousands of lives.....but
Liberals would never torture.....it's just wrong....unless it's their heroes.
Liberals would rather let 1000 murderers go free than convict one innocent man....sorry jack, I'm gonna go with the numbers....one innocent man vs 1000 innocent victums........

But the one think I have control over is my personal morality, and I'm a big fan of enforcing that.

Every soldier has information that can save lives. Torture is not justified to retrieve it. That is why it is banned by the Geneva convention

Gong. Actually the Geneva convention is for soldiers in uniforms of recognized governments who display their arms openly for military objectives. There is zero applicability to that and your argument.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What difference does it make? We are either a moral nation or we are not

Just because our level of torture is less than someone elses does not justify it

Oh wow the holier than thou left.....I love you guys, personal morality you dont care about, but by God we're not gonna torture people......please torture is a tool I support when needed.....I'd rather torture a person that has info to save hundreds or thousands of lives.....but
Liberals would never torture.....it's just wrong....unless it's their heroes.
Liberals would rather let 1000 murderers go free than convict one innocent man....sorry jack, I'm gonna go with the numbers....one innocent man vs 1000 innocent victums........

But the one think I have control over is my personal morality, and I'm a big fan of enforcing that.

Every soldier has information that can save lives. Torture is not justified to retrieve it. That is why it is banned by the Geneva convention

Who cares what they say? First define torture, because what Bush didnt wasnt it
Well lets look at the convention that you love so much

Third Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

• 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
• 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill ALL of the following conditions:
  • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
  • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
  • that of carrying arms openly;
  • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
• 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
• 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
• 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
• 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
• 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

none of these covers the Gitmo Prisoners....sorry, sucks to be you

And they dont apply to spies......spies are considered on the same level as terrorists......and get nothing......sorry man, one of these days you might learn something

 

[Mr. Shaman]

everyone should be aware that the bush administration engaged in torture.even more blatantly obvious than other US administrations.

December 5, 2002

George Bush; Cunning Sociopath​

"If any of us are to have a future worth having, the world's leaders, the members of Congress, the US corporate media and people of all political persuasions who value freedom and democracy had better start seeing George W. Bush for what he is: a sociopath and a passive serial killer.

Psychiatrists tell us that all serial killers lack the emotions that make us human; that they have to learn to emulate those emotions in order to get by in society. Hence, a charming, well educated fellow like Ted Bundy who is known to have murdered 15 women and may have killed 36 before he was caught.

While Bush is no Bundy, when it comes Bundy's education and acquired charm, and to our knowledge has never personally murdered anyone, it has been evident to us that there is something missing in George W. in terms of his lack of compassion and empathy. As governor of Texas, he set a record in signing death warrants — 154 in five years. He even made fun of the way convicted killer Karla Faye Tucker begged for her life.

If we believe the psychiatrists, a sign of a future serial killer is a child who delights in torturing and killing animals. George W., as a child, did exactly that. In a May 21, 2000, New York Times' puff piece about the values Bush gained growing up in Midland, Texas, Nicholas D. Kristof quoted Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton: "'We were terrible to animals,' recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. 'Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Mr. Throckmorton said. 'Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'"

"This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels," Whyte wrote.

"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper," Miller said.

"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," Miller told Whyte. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs."

 

[L.K.Eder]

Oh wow the holier than thou left.....I love you guys, personal morality you dont care about, but by God we're not gonna torture people......please torture is a tool I support when needed.....I'd rather torture a person that has info to save hundreds or thousands of lives.....but
Liberals would never torture.....it's just wrong....unless it's their heroes.
Liberals would rather let 1000 murderers go free than convict one innocent man....sorry jack, I'm gonna go with the numbers....one innocent man vs 1000 innocent victums........

But the one think I have control over is my personal morality, and I'm a big fan of enforcing that.

Every soldier has information that can save lives. Torture is not justified to retrieve it. That is why it is banned by the Geneva convention

Gong. Actually the Geneva convention is for soldiers in uniforms of recognized governments who display their arms openly for military objectives. There is zero applicability to that and your argument.

you are bluffing.

there is a specific part of the geneva convention which concerns "general protection of populations against certain consequences of war". this is relevant for the "terrorists" snatched in afghanistan or iraq (see bounty issue).

 

[kaz]

image is not irrelevant.

I agree with the statement in general, but I was pointing out it was irrelevant to the post you responded to.

in west germany, the image of the USA was that of the liberators who handed out chewing gums. soldiers were running for their lives literally to reach the US american occupation zone at the end of WWII.
the usa was the protecting force vs. THE RUSSIANS.

after the cold war, these facts were less relevant. and the role of the US was under scrutiny. the obvious asshole behavior as shown after "nineeleven" ultimately destroyed the image of the good american in west germany.

I agree, it's that role that's the issue. If we were fighting a war that was our business for our defense, "torture" would have been irrelevant to the discussion, we have the right to protect ourselves and our troops and I keep quoting "torture" because is wasn't torture.

However, we were fighting a war that wasn't relevant to the defense of the US, and not doing "torture" wouldn't have made it relevant, so once again, "torture" is irrelevant. It is our role that was bad. Again though, Democrats were arm in arm skipping down that lane, if you don't blame them just Republicans then this isn't a relevant discussion, you're just partisan.

Ironically Germany benefited from our taking on Iraq far more than we did. It directs the hatred away from them towards us and Germany is a lot more accessible for attacks.

i am pleasantly surprised by your response.

this shows me that posting serious stuff on this board is not always wasted. you actually read my stuff.

i have 2 issues with your response.

the bush administration pulled the trigger. they are primarily responsible. all the quotes of democrats the decade before the invasion do show is that apparently they were aware of an asshole in the middle east. but an asshole that was contained, and if there was any doubt about that, a swift aerial bombing campaign was assumed to solve the problem (end of 1998; a la "wag the dog").
the "threat" of saddam was contained or not existent. that was the status quo in 2002.

this was not to be changed by the report of Blix.

so, facts had to be created. by invading. and this invasion was ordered by the bush administration.

i can only say that the opposition were wimps. but not AS responsible.

the second issue concerns your statement that germany profited from the invasion. please elaborate.

Ditto. We agree on a lot, not everything. But it's nice to have a rare debate where responses are actually related to the points made. I'm OK with having fun with others who don't do so as well, but it's nice to get serious replies in there.

I'll agree on the narrow point of the Iraq war that W was relatively more responsible than the Democrats since he made the decision to invade. Though remember actually we were already in Iraq due to Clinton's decision to invade the Kurdish area and install no fly zones over most of the country. Clearly those were acts of war as well. However, my point is that if this really is an issue, and I think it is, then we are involved in a lot of conflicts in the middle east and elsewhere that are not our business and are leading to the same results, and across the board both parties are in the cookie jar up to their elbows.

As for Germany,
1) They benefit because we make groups like Al Qaeda hate us more than them.
2) They are more accessible, there's actually been far more terrorism in Europe than the US. Just the one they got was a big one. But there are a lot more regular attacks in Europe. By hating us, we draw more attention as a target reducing them as a target.
3) They are far more dependent on middle east oil. Most of that goes to Europe and Japan, relatively little to the US.

 

[kaz]

Every soldier has information that can save lives. Torture is not justified to retrieve it. That is why it is banned by the Geneva convention

Gong. Actually the Geneva convention is for soldiers in uniforms of recognized governments who display their arms openly for military objectives. There is zero applicability to that and your argument.

you are bluffing.

there is a specific part of the geneva convention which concerns "general protection of populations against certain consequences of war". this is relevant for the "terrorists" snatched in afghanistan or iraq (see bounty issue).

That's related to things like the carpet bombing of cities that happened in WWII. While terrorists groups are not military per the convention, I have a hard time calling them "civilians." They are trying to topple governments. Either way, I have a hard time seeing the applicability. Can you be more specific?

 

[L.K.Eder]

I agree with the statement in general, but I was pointing out it was irrelevant to the post you responded to.



I agree, it's that role that's the issue. If we were fighting a war that was our business for our defense, "torture" would have been irrelevant to the discussion, we have the right to protect ourselves and our troops and I keep quoting "torture" because is wasn't torture.

However, we were fighting a war that wasn't relevant to the defense of the US, and not doing "torture" wouldn't have made it relevant, so once again, "torture" is irrelevant. It is our role that was bad. Again though, Democrats were arm in arm skipping down that lane, if you don't blame them just Republicans then this isn't a relevant discussion, you're just partisan.

Ironically Germany benefited from our taking on Iraq far more than we did. It directs the hatred away from them towards us and Germany is a lot more accessible for attacks.

i am pleasantly surprised by your response.

this shows me that posting serious stuff on this board is not always wasted. you actually read my stuff.

i have 2 issues with your response.

the bush administration pulled the trigger. they are primarily responsible. all the quotes of democrats the decade before the invasion do show is that apparently they were aware of an asshole in the middle east. but an asshole that was contained, and if there was any doubt about that, a swift aerial bombing campaign was assumed to solve the problem (end of 1998; a la "wag the dog").
the "threat" of saddam was contained or not existent. that was the status quo in 2002.

this was not to be changed by the report of Blix.

so, facts had to be created. by invading. and this invasion was ordered by the bush administration.

i can only say that the opposition were wimps. but not AS responsible.

the second issue concerns your statement that germany profited from the invasion. please elaborate.

Ditto. We agree on a lot, not everything. But it's nice to have a rare debate where responses are actually related to the points made. I'm OK with having fun with others who don't do so as well, but it's nice to get serious replies in there.

I'll agree on the narrow point of the Iraq war that W was relatively more responsible than the Democrats since he made the decision to invade. Though remember actually we were already in Iraq due to Clinton's decision to invade the Kurdish area and install no fly zones over most of the country. Clearly those were acts of war as well. However, my point is that if this really is an issue, and I think it is, then we are involved in a lot of conflicts in the middle east and elsewhere that are not our business and are leading to the same results, and across the board both parties are in the cookie jar up to their elbows.

As for Germany,
1) They benefit because we make groups like Al Qaeda hate us more than them.
2) They are more accessible, there's actually been far more terrorism in Europe than the US. Just the one they got was a big one. But there are a lot more regular attacks in Europe. By hating us, we draw more attention as a target reducing them as a target.
3) They are far more dependent on middle east oil. Most of that goes to Europe and Japan, relatively little to the US.

as for germany, i have to tell you that germany was very much liked in iraq before the invasion. there is some truth to the "sweet heart deals". germany is very much liked (outside of europe and israel) in the world in general, which was suprising to me a lot of times during my travels.

terrorism in germany was in part linked to the presence of US troops on german ground. so i think that germany profited from not joining the invasion. it certainly did for me. it was the one moment where i was proud of the politicians representing my country, when germany did not join, explicitly because they were not convinced by the charade.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Every soldier has information that can save lives. Torture is not justified to retrieve it. That is why it is banned by the Geneva convention

Gong. Actually the Geneva convention is for soldiers in uniforms of recognized governments who display their arms openly for military objectives. There is zero applicability to that and your argument.

you are bluffing.

there is a specific part of the geneva convention which concerns "general protection of populations against certain consequences of war". this is relevant for the "terrorists" snatched in afghanistan or iraq (see bounty issue).

Link please....First why do liberals just change meanings and history on the fly.....I showed, spies are not covered and neither are terrorists....The reason is they are deceptive and people hate them. They dont have a nationality or a uniform or anything to signal who they are, AND they dont play by the rules........to get protection, you have to give it....the US does to appropriate detainees.......but not to terrorists...because they dont reciprocate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Torture is illegal nationally and internationally.

Those authorize it and who do it in war time are war criminals.

Bush et al are war criminals.

That is why the senior foreign policies don't travel very much, certainly aware of western Europe, Oregon, and Massachusetts as not good places for them to go.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Gong. Actually the Geneva convention is for soldiers in uniforms of recognized governments who display their arms openly for military objectives. There is zero applicability to that and your argument.

you are bluffing.

there is a specific part of the geneva convention which concerns "general protection of populations against certain consequences of war". this is relevant for the "terrorists" snatched in afghanistan or iraq (see bounty issue).

That's related to things like the carpet bombing of cities that happened in WWII. While terrorists groups are not military per the convention, I have a hard time calling them "civilians." They are trying to topple governments. Either way, I have a hard time seeing the applicability. Can you be more specific?

the root of this argument is the circular reasoning needed to justify "torture" or the "not applying to the geneva conventions".

a person is in custody of an invading force.

is this person entitled to the protections guaranteed by the geneva conventions?

no, because he is the member of a new group called "enemy combatant".
this group is not mentioned in the convention, therefore the convention does not apply.

the same happens with the definition of torture. it is called "enhanced interrogation" (or frat hi-jinks) and, because it does not comprise flaying (e.g.), it can not be torture. and also, other guys do torture worse...

the applicability of both these concepts has been shown numerous times.

a person becomes prisoner of US forces, and for this fact alone, no longer has any rights. he has to be an "enemy combatant" who can be "interrogated enhancedly".

 

[Yurt]

Torture is illegal nationally and internationally.

Those authorize it and who do it in war time are war criminals.

Bush et al are war criminals.

That is why the senior foreign policies don't travel very much, certainly aware of western Europe, Oregon, and Massachusetts as not good places for them to go.

prove bush authorized torture

all you are is a boring troll jake

 

[buckeye45_73]

Torture is illegal nationally and internationally.

Those authorize it and who do it in war time are war criminals.

Bush et al are war criminals.

That is why the senior foreign policies don't travel very much, certainly aware of western Europe, Oregon, and Massachusetts as not good places for them to go.

Do I have to kick your ass in every thread.....God you'd think you'd get tired of getting a beatdown..

I just posted the rules on that. I'm not a big fan of international law, but you are......and I posted them.....

The terrorists DO NOT QUALIFY........so therefore the law does not apply to them.

AND even if it did, waterboarding and dog walking are not torture......so go pretend to be a republican on a democratic site where people are stupid enough to believe you.(and yeah I'm hitting that ass evertime, I love to mock fakers)....

 

[Yurt]

Torture is illegal nationally and internationally.

Those authorize it and who do it in war time are war criminals.

Bush et al are war criminals.

That is why the senior foreign policies don't travel very much, certainly aware of western Europe, Oregon, and Massachusetts as not good places for them to go.

Do I have to kick your ass in every thread.....God you'd think you'd get tired of getting a beatdown..

I just posted the rules on that. I'm not a big fan of international law, but you are......and I posted them.....

The terrorists DO NOT QUALIFY........so therefore the law does not apply to them.

AND even if it did, waterboarding and dog walking are not torture......so go pretend to be a republican on a democratic site where people are stupid enough to believe you.(and yeah I'm hitting that ass evertime, I love to mock fakers)....

geneva convention does indeed apply to terrorists

 

[L.K.Eder]

Torture is illegal nationally and internationally.

Those authorize it and who do it in war time are war criminals.

Bush et al are war criminals.

That is why the senior foreign policies don't travel very much, certainly aware of western Europe, Oregon, and Massachusetts as not good places for them to go.

prove bush authorized torture

all you are is a boring troll jake

yoo bybee

 

[kaz]

you are bluffing.

there is a specific part of the geneva convention which concerns "general protection of populations against certain consequences of war". this is relevant for the "terrorists" snatched in afghanistan or iraq (see bounty issue).

That's related to things like the carpet bombing of cities that happened in WWII. While terrorists groups are not military per the convention, I have a hard time calling them "civilians." They are trying to topple governments. Either way, I have a hard time seeing the applicability. Can you be more specific?

the root of this argument is the circular reasoning needed to justify "torture" or the "not applying to the geneva conventions".

Actually all I argued was that RW's citing the Geneva Convention was irrelevant because the Geneva Convention says who's covered by it, and "enemy combatants" clearly are not. It's like me arguing that I can't be charged for murder because of diplomatic immunity when I don't have diplomatic immunity.

a person is in custody of an invading force.

is this person entitled to the protections guaranteed by the geneva conventions?

no, because he is the member of a new group called "enemy combatant".
this group is not mentioned in the convention, therefore the convention does not apply.

No because they aren't soldiers ad defined in the Geneva Convention, not because they are a the new group. There is a way to give them Geneva Convention rights, reopen it and define the new group and give them rights.

the same happens with the definition of torture. it is called "enhanced interrogation" (or frat hi-jinks) and, because it does not comprise flaying (e.g.), it can not be torture. and also, other guys do torture worse...

the applicability of both these concepts has been shown numerous times.

a person becomes prisoner of US forces, and for this fact alone, no longer has any rights. he has to be an "enemy combatant" who can be "interrogated enhancedly".

I'm not really following this part of the argument.

 

[kaz]

Torture is illegal nationally and internationally.

Those authorize it and who do it in war time are war criminals.

Bush et al are war criminals.

That is why the senior foreign policies don't travel very much, certainly aware of western Europe, Oregon, and Massachusetts as not good places for them to go.

Do I have to kick your ass in every thread.....God you'd think you'd get tired of getting a beatdown..

I just posted the rules on that. I'm not a big fan of international law, but you are......and I posted them.....

The terrorists DO NOT QUALIFY........so therefore the law does not apply to them.

AND even if it did, waterboarding and dog walking are not torture......so go pretend to be a republican on a democratic site where people are stupid enough to believe you.(and yeah I'm hitting that ass evertime, I love to mock fakers)....

geneva convention does indeed apply to terrorists

Agreed, the terrorists who wear uniforms, carry their arms in the open, are engaged in military operations on a field of combat and so forth as explicitly stated in the Geneva Convention. Wait, ones who do that aren't terrorists...

You can make up a statement, that doesn't make it so.

 

[L.K.Eder]

That's related to things like the carpet bombing of cities that happened in WWII. While terrorists groups are not military per the convention, I have a hard time calling them "civilians." They are trying to topple governments. Either way, I have a hard time seeing the applicability. Can you be more specific?

the root of this argument is the circular reasoning needed to justify "torture" or the "not applying to the geneva conventions".

Actually all I argued was that RW's citing the Geneva Convention was irrelevant because the Geneva Convention says who's covered by it, and "enemy combatants" clearly are not. It's like me arguing that I can't be charged for murder because of diplomatic immunity when I don't have diplomatic immunity.

a person is in custody of an invading force.

is this person entitled to the protections guaranteed by the geneva conventions?

no, because he is the member of a new group called "enemy combatant".
this group is not mentioned in the convention, therefore the convention does not apply.

No because they aren't soldiers ad defined in the Geneva Convention, not because they are a the new group. There is a way to give them Geneva Convention rights, reopen it and define the new group and give them rights.

the same happens with the definition of torture. it is called "enhanced interrogation" (or frat hi-jinks) and, because it does not comprise flaying (e.g.), it can not be torture. and also, other guys do torture worse...

the applicability of both these concepts has been shown numerous times.

a person becomes prisoner of US forces, and for this fact alone, no longer has any rights. he has to be an "enemy combatant" who can be "interrogated enhancedly".

I'm not really following this part of the argument.

my whole post was an attempt of juxtaposing what was/is happening with what can be followed logically or accepted ethically if following the geneva convention.

it is indeed a screaming difference, which should become glaringly obvious even to the most indoctrinated homer as soon as the US tries to claim the high ground.

 

[Yurt]

Do I have to kick your ass in every thread.....God you'd think you'd get tired of getting a beatdown..

I just posted the rules on that. I'm not a big fan of international law, but you are......and I posted them.....

The terrorists DO NOT QUALIFY........so therefore the law does not apply to them.

AND even if it did, waterboarding and dog walking are not torture......so go pretend to be a republican on a democratic site where people are stupid enough to believe you.(and yeah I'm hitting that ass evertime, I love to mock fakers)....

geneva convention does indeed apply to terrorists

Agreed, the terrorists who wear uniforms, carry their arms in the open, are engaged in military operations on a field of combat and so forth as explicitly stated in the Geneva Convention. Wait, ones who do that aren't terrorists...

You can make up a statement, that doesn't make it so.

it applies to those not wearing uniforms as well.

read up on it. look under guerrilla warfare.

 

[Yurt]

These Articles remove some restrictions imposed by the G PW and no longer require that combatants wear distinctive clothing as had been the case under Article 4 of the GPW.

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1622&context=iclr