Bush Gave Permission for Abuse

[guitarguy3]

"President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday."

-AP
Great to see our President's values in action, isn't it? This is the kind of stuff that has to stop.

Among the techniques that Rumsfeld approved on Dec. 2, 2002, in addition to the grabbing, the yelling and the stress positions:

- 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."

Alberto Gonzales, a White House adivosr, said the United States "is fighting an enemy that does not fight, attack or plan according to accepted laws of war - in particular the Geneva Conventions."

So thats real great, now the White House is endorsing us stooping to their level, breaking our own laws. Since when has the president and his cabinent have the right to over ride laws, over ride the very core of our values, our constitution?

November won't come soon enough.

[pidgeball6]

Heh, that's some pretty tough interrogation techniques the U.S. has now. They're still laughable by many countries standards. The outpouring of emotion over "big brother" using unmentionable techniques in our intelligence gathering community are what brought about their restriction in the 70's and 80's. The lack of which would explain our lack of knowledge regarding various anti-american groups around the globe, including those that would fly commercial airliners into sky scrapers. It also explains why the best information we can get after the shit has hit the fan is from an unreliable source with ulterior motives. There do exist ugly transgressions that must occur in order to maintain a healthy, happy, populus. Granted, change was due when the restrictions were created, but the pendulum has swung too far. As for me and mine, we prefer knowing more.

[Bugfatty]

- Using detainees'"individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress."

I bet they had one guy who was afraid of spiders and they have video of CIA guys holding cage with a big spider in it and he is crying and yelling "NO! NO! I'll talk, Ill talk, please! Dear god, no!"

Imagine if that video was made public. Talk about humiliation!

[shade]

That was for Afghanistan and Al Queda detainees because they are not members of a military, and thus are not subject to the Geneva convention.

This is very old news, and does not apply to Abu Ghraib, where some are actual civilians, which are protected by the Geneva conventions.

[Mugatu]

Interesting to see America pick and choose what international laws they want to follow but then again thats what the whole Iraq war is about. Perhaps the terrorists were not an official army but its still disgusting on a human rights level.

At what level are we willing to say no to the state in the name of national security? I for one do not want to sell my soul so my body can survive.

[pidgeball6]

I agree, totally disgusting on a human rights level. These terrorists are animals with little regard for life

Never worried about my government buying my soul before, what kinda cabbage are we talkin' about? 'Cause, I mean, everything is for sell.

[shade]

Perhaps the terrorists were not an official army but its still disgusting on a human rights level. Is it ok when it makes them give up their friends that will do worse?

[Viceroy]

Is it ok when it makes them give up their friends that will do worse?

I would advocate the torture of 10 people, if it meant preventing something like 9/11. I would not advocate the torture of one person just so the guards could have some entertainment. Torture is only a useful method when done as an interrogation. What people seem to forget is that from what have seen, the abuse that took place was for the enjoyment of the soldiers.

Since when has putting naked prisoners into homosexual positions and making a pyramid out of prisoners an effective method of interrogation? It never has been, it was just done for the sheer amusement of the prison guards.

[shade]

You hit the nail on the head.

The treatment we give the prisoners in Cuba is for the genuine reason of interrogation of high level and vicious al queda members and other terrorists.

The torture at Abu Ghraib still appears to have been for sadistic pleasure of the guards.

[DeeDee]

Ya know... I do not feel we are "stooping" to their level. True, what we did was not right.. but.... i do not see us picking up CONTRACTORS and chopping off their heads with knives.

There are general rules of society. For instance... a bank robber is looked upon far better than let's say.. a serial killer or child molestor. All of these actions are wrong, but some are unexcusable.

Beating, humiliating, etc.. wrong and not what this country was founded on. We were dead wrong for that.
Taking a dull blade and sawing off an innocent man's head to push your f'd up extremist agenda? - completely unforgivable.

[shade]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123435,00.html

[Viceroy]

Only an administration under severe pressure will release secret documents to prove they're telling the truth. Just goes to show how much trouble the Bush administration considers itself in.

[droogsteve]

Only an administration under severe pressure will release secret documents to prove they're telling the truth. Just goes to show how much trouble the Bush administration considers itself in.


Huh??!!

Disproving unfounded allegations in an election year is a weakness now? WTF?! Is the administration supposed to just allow the allegations to stand unchallenged? If they refused to address them at all you'd claim that they were stonewalling. I'm obviously no fan of the Bush administration, but your almost fanatical hatred of them has taken you beyond the capability of rational discussion.

As far as the interrogation techniques, Shade is right. You cannot compare the sadistic behavior of the morons Abu Ghraib to the interrogation techniques at Guantanamo. The Geneva convention is in essence a contract. Al Qaeda refuses to abide by that contract, therefore we are not bound by it. We provide the prisoners with proper food, shelter, medical care and even Islamic chaplains. If scaring them with dogs produces information that saves lives, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Especially considering that Al Qaeda's treatment of prisoners tends to favor slightly harsher techniques. Like beheadings.

[guitarguy3]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123435,00.html

That saying he never ordered it, now that he never gave permission.

As Bush is now claiming, this war was to free the Iraqi people (not WMDs), so should we be torturing them?

And also, I do agree somewhat with torturing, I just really like to argue. :rolleyes: But, if we are going to imply torture as a way to get information, we should repeal the law that says torture of people in other countries is illegal. Either that or bring them here..... ;)

[guitarguy3]

Only an administration under severe pressure will release secret documents to prove they're telling the truth. Just goes to show how much trouble the Bush administration considers itself in.

lol with the avatar. Not even the Brits like Bush....

[mps]

The treatment we give the prisoners in Cuba is for the genuine reason of interrogation of high level and vicious al queda members and other terrorists.

So what lengths do you think this should go to? Should Americans be allowed to murder the inmates at Guantanamo Bay? Would that be going to far? Should Americans be allowed to prosecute the inmates for capital crimes, convict and execute them without the inmates leaving the prison, having a jury, or submitting any appeal? Should Americans be allowed to withhold this information from Britain and its other allies in this 'war on terror'? Guantanamo Bay was created for one purpose: to execute people.

This is very old news, and does not apply to Abu Ghraib, where some are actual civilians, which are protected by the Geneva conventions.

In July of 2003 Amnesty International sent a memorandum to the US Government and the CPA stating that their organization has received reports of ill-treatment, torture, and murder by the Coalition forces, and that these actions were not confined to criminal suspects. Amnesty International also stated in the memorandum that these actions are a direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and International Human Rights Law. The CPA ignored the warnings of Amnesty International.

In February of 2004 The International Committee of the Red Cross sent a report to the US Government and the CPA stating that their organization witnessed acts of civilian abuse and torture while visiting the detention centres in Iraq. American guards killed 7 people and injured 18 of by shooting at them, while others were threatened and transferred to Guantanamo Bay to await execution.

[guitarguy3]

There was another time in Feb(?) of last year that troops shot into a group of peaceful protesters, killed 10+/- and injured hundreds.

[pat99872]

WHO THE FUCK CARES????

these bastards deserved to be tortored. its the same kind of ppl that beheaded berg and kim

im fuckin glad that bush wavied the torture laws.. that shows me that hes becomming a man

the only bad thing is that the media got hold of the pics and started talking a bunch of shit

[mps]

What do you mean by "the same kind of people"?

Dark skinned? Muslim? Human?

[pat99872]

What do you mean by "the same kind of people"?

Dark skinned? Muslim? Human?

the ones beheading inoccent ppl, killing US troops, car bombing. ect...

[guitarguy3]

I don't think those were the people beheading Berg....they were too busy being tortured....

[mps]

Okay, so what of the American troops executing people without fair trial, sexually humiliating inmates, and detaining and murdering civilians? It seems that you subscribe to the archaic dogshit carriage of "an eye for an eye", so do you believe that your 'enemies' are defensible when they kill your troops? Is it unobjectionable for Americans to murder the innocent, rape the detained, and deny accountability?

[droogsteve]

Okay, so what of the American troops executing people without fair trial, sexually humiliating inmates, and detaining and murdering civilians? It seems that you subscribe to the archaic dogshit carriage of "an eye for an eye", so do you believe that your 'enemies' are defensible when they kill your troops? Is it unobjectionable for Americans to murder the innocent, rape the detained, and deny accountability?


Please provide a link regarding the execution of prisoners and the murder of innocents. And I don't mean some left wing conspiracy site.

As far as the incidents at Abu Ghraib, they were exposed and made public by the US Army. The soldiers responsible will be punished. Stop speaking as if such behavior is US policy.

[Mushy2008]

I dont know if anything like this has actually been posted but there is proof George bush approved tourture and signed a memo prepared by a lawyer of john ashcroft heres the conspiracy article http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000281.html

Heres the actualy memo signed by geogre bush allowing torture Its a pdf so it might need adobe or something. msy take little to dl

http://marc.perkel.com/pdf/torture.pdf

[mps]

Please provide a link regarding the execution of prisoners and the murder of innocents. And I don't mean some left wing conspiracy site.

I first read the story first when it ran in The Courier Mail during springtime last year. I'm sure they have a website so look for yourself. Just a thought: Not everything worth reading is on the Internet.

As far as the incidents at Abu Ghraib, they were exposed and made public by the US Army. The soldiers responsible will be punished. Stop speaking as if such behavior is US policy.

The US Army admitted to it after the fact. It had been taking place in Iraq far longer than they would have you imagine, as well as in Afghanistan. And while it is true that the soldiers who committed the crimes will be punished, those who issued the orders and those who put the interrogation and torture methods into place have not (as of yet), but give it time and I'm sure they will be disciplined accordingly.

For example, the Nazi's are still being punished 60 years after the fact and the events that have transpired regarding the US Government and Army over the past 3-5 years are tantamount to the Nazi rule. Such behaviour is US policy whether you'd like to acknowledge that reality or not.

[Jwest]

As far as torture goes what that handfull of idiots did is not torture. That is just the sick demented mind of some poor probably molested jerkoff trying to get his sick kicks. Those people did not deserve to be humiliated like that but torture is needed indeed. Without it we would lose a lot of valuable military intellegence such as number of troops in a strong hold what kind of weaponary ECT.and as far as eye for an eye wel you see what the extremists think is an eye for an eye a jackass humiliates a couple of poor souls and they behead an innocent man :mad: if you ask me an eye for an eye would be just in that situation.

[droogsteve]

I first read the story first when it ran in The Courier Mail during springtime last year. I'm sure they have a website so look for yourself. Just a thought: Not everything worth reading is on the Internet.

That's not how it works. You don't make outrageous claims without proof and then tell people who ask you for it to find it themselves. If you can't back your claims, I'm forced to assume that you're making it up.



The US Army admitted to it after the fact. It had been taking place in Iraq far longer than they would have you imagine, as well as in Afghanistan. And while it is true that the soldiers who committed the crimes will be punished, those who issued the orders and those who put the interrogation and torture methods into place have not (as of yet), but give it time and I'm sure they will be disciplined accordingly.

For example, the Nazi's are still being punished 60 years after the fact and the events that have transpired regarding the US Government and Army over the past 3-5 years are tantamount to the Nazi rule. Such behaviour is US policy whether you'd like to acknowledge that reality or not.

A few idiot reservists abusing prisoners is tantamount to state sponsored genocide and conquest that killed tens of millions??!!

It's certainly nice to see that you're not a reactionary and know how to keep things in their proper perspective. :rolleyes:

[Jwest]

Jesus man that is insane i cant belive that the way i interpret that is you are saying that we are no better than the Nazis OMFG you have got to be kidding . You seem to me to be some kind of whacked out conspiracy theory freak what do you think we should do give them a coffee and a danish and say you can tel us what you want to and leave the important stuff out :rolleyes: get serious what we have done is not genocide but in my opinion with extremist supporters like you MPS we should then there would be nothing to support :D

[mps]

That's not how it works. You don't make outrageous claims without proof and then tell people who ask you for it to find it themselves. If you can't back your claims, I'm forced to assume that you're making it up.

Believe what you will, but God forbid you actually have to look something up. If I come across the article I'll transcribe it, but I'm not going to go out of my way to convince some ignoramus of governement corruption and civilian murder. I provided you with the source and a time frame to narrow down your search, so you can probably find it yourself.

A few idiot reservists abusing prisoners is tantamount to state sponsored genocide and conquest that killed tens of millions??!!

A massive roundup of innocent people for execution sure sounds like Nazi Germany to me, but maybe you need a history lesson.

[mps]

Jesus man that is insane i cant belive that the way i interpret that is you are saying that we are no better than the Nazis OMFG you have got to be kidding . You seem to me to be some kind of whacked out conspiracy theory freak what do you think we should do give them a coffee and a danish and say you can tel us what you want to and leave the important stuff out get serious what we have done is not genocide but in my opinion with extremist supporters like you MPS we should then there would be nothing to support

OMGWTF LOLOLOL!!!

Perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass, get some air and then try and add some coherency to your babbling. Interrogation is one thing, but torturing people while violating their human rights is another; as is executing people without fair trial or the right to attorney and appeal for ‘crimes’ that no one else recognizes.

You know, people had very little idea as to what was actually occurring under the Nazi regime in regards to the mass genocide until after the coalition forces brought them down, but here we have a situation where its starting all over again and there are ignorant twats pointing fingers and claiming its all a conspiracy theory. Nice. Stand by your government, they’re dong a bang up job.

[Jwest]

HA well i guess that is it MPS knows all what we should do is pull all of our troops out of Iraq send back all the detainies and give them all hockey sticks and a shity accent for fucks sake aeh ;) Nazi's :rolleyes:

[Viceroy]

these bastards deserved to be tortored. its the same kind of ppl that beheaded berg and kim

If they were I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I don't believe for one minute that every detainee subjected to torture was a murderer or torturer themselves.

[mps]

HA well i guess that is it MPS knows all what we should do is pull all of our troops out of Iraq send back all the detainies and give them all hockey sticks and a shity accent for fucks sake aeh Nazi's

You could do that.

Or you can just continue to watch it unfold with your thumb up your ass, and then 10 years down the road you can tell your inbred and ADD canidate children how you had no idea the US Government was enganging in such illegal and horrific activites, violating human rights and executing people for inane reasons while they call you a moron and kick you in the shin for supporting such hate and corruption.

Your choice.

[Bugfatty]

You could do that.

Or you can just continue to watch it unfold with your thumb up your ass, and then 10 years down the road you can tell your inbred and ADD canidate children how you had no idea the US Government was enganging in such illegal and horrific activites, violating human rights and executing people for inane reasons while they call you a moron and kick you in the shin for supporting such hate and corruption.

Your choice.

Out of sight, out of mind, Canada ;)

[Viceroy]

To think that none of this, not one shred of info would be available about what was and wasn't authorised, and what was committed, were it not for a few dumbass soldiers taking pictures...

Goodness knows what else there is that we don't know about, and should.

[Jwest]

Fortunatly i will not be swayed on my beliefs we have commited no war crimes. You can keep running your mouth and spewing that sewage but i dont think you can honestly believe in your heart that what we are doing is Nazism there is no way i think you are just trying to make some argument that you want someone to agree with. In all honesty you seem to be a very intellegent person and that was kind of immature for me to say but come on man there is no way even close to us being anywhere in the same leauge as a Nazi regime no way. torture is a neccesary evil its shitty but its part of war and war is hell what can you do it has to be done so i appologize for the hockeysticks and shitty accent remark

[droogsteve]

Believe what you will, but God forbid you actually have to look something up. If I come across the article I'll transcribe it, but I'm not going to go out of my way to convince some ignoramus of governement corruption and civilian murder. I provided you with the source and a time frame to narrow down your search, so you can probably find it yourself.
I read that Canada slaughters American babies and makes them into the hot dogs sold at Maple Leafs games. I believe I read it in the NY Times a few years ago. Look it up if you don't believe me. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



A massive roundup of innocent people for execution sure sounds like Nazi Germany to me, but maybe you need a history lesson.
No thank you. I'm quite familiar with world history, particularly WW2 Germany. However, the TINIEST SHRED OF PROOF backing your outrageous execution allegations would be appreciated.

[mps]

I don't believe I stated that the US Government is engaging in Nazism, but rather that their actions are tantamount (that means equivalent) to the actions that the Nazi regime engaged in.

The US Government is using Guantanamo Bay to execute people they arrest while ignoring their human rights, refusing them attorney's for their ‘trials’, and denying them an appeal.

So to put it across to you, this means is that they are rounding up people and claiming they are 'terrorists' and they put them on trial without a jury, they then sentence these 'terrorists' to death without allowing for an appeal. While its not exactly the same as what the Nazi's did, its pretty fucking close and equally disgusting.

[Jwest]

Man no way see thats my point we are not just executing people to execute them if they are being executed it is for a damn good reason and its nothing to do with Race, color, creed, or religon. you show me a link where it says the americans are executing people unfairly and without just cause and then i will argue my point no more. But damn it man if you are gonna insult our country at least give us some respect and show some legit proof. other wize why try to argue a point you cant back up

[Mugatu]

Its like talking to a brick wall sometimes...

[mps]

If you recall, I mentioned a memorandum that Amnesty International had sent to the US Government and the CPA. You can read through that memorandum here (http://www.amnestyusa.org/regions/americas/document.do?id=807F25047CCE1E6F80256B97004FD0C0). But wait, if you had bothered to check into anything I have been saying than you would have already read it. But you didn't… so I guess its just easier to dismiss something like this than to actually look into these claims for yourself instead of passing them off as 'outrageous'

[Thvggee]

No qualms with torture myself, although I think that for America to resort to it is the height of hypocrisy.

[Jwest]

Ok so i read it but it still has nothing to state that we kiled people unjustly who cares that they had no trial if they deserved it than they deserved it.who are we to judge how do you know that they didnt do any thing wrong how do i know that they did its not our call but im sure the people that where killed was done so justly. The largest majority of that has nothing to do with Iraq its The god damn terrorists that flew the planes in to our Twin Towers see thats what i dont understand you can sit there and slam our country but if it had been your country to get attacked would your leaders just stand by and say oh thats fine kill our civilians with family memebers and friends, we dont mind there are plenty more i dont know about you but my country mens lives are all important to me. Thats why i joined the military and i have said it before we have done some shitty things in the past but i am pretty damn sure that what we have done to the terroists has been just and deserved. Also i knew Magotu would side with you on this one jesus man you dont deserve that money that is sending your dissrespecting undeserving ass to college you make me sick :mad:

[mps]

Ok so i read it but it still has nothing to state that we kiled people unjustly

Well, did you happen to read the part about the military commissions allowing the admittance of hearsay evidence and forced testimony in handing out execution sentences? If so, then just what exactly is your definition of 'unjust'? How can you say they 'deserve it' if the evidence the US Government has against them is falsified?

see thats what i dont understand you can sit there and slam our country

I sure can. :D

but if it had been your country to get attacked would your leaders just stand by and say oh thats fine kill our civilians with family memebers and friends, we dont mind there are plenty more i dont know about you but my country mens lives are all important to me.

So when exactly does the executing of innocent people part come in? I mean, if the detainees are innocent until proven guilty, but the only way you can ‘prove’ them guilty is by making shit up, don't you see a problem? If in fact they were actually terrorists whose guilt was unarguable then there wouldn't be a need for rumor and assumption in determining whether they are guilty or not.

Do you see it yet?

[Mugatu]

Ok so i read it but it still has nothing to state that we kiled people unjustly who cares that they had no trial if they deserved it than they deserved it.who are we to judge how do you know that they didnt do any thing wrong how do i know that they did its not our call but im sure the people that where killed was done so justly.

A trial would determin if they truely deserved it. The military should not be the sole decider of who lives and who dies in this case because that is border line facisim if not facisim itself. Also it would be a safety net to ensure that their is no illegal activity or criminal motive behind the killings.

but i am pretty damn sure that what we have done to the terroists has been just and deserved

Being pretty sure isnt good enough when it comes to life. A trial would make certain of it.

Also i knew Magotu would side with you on this one jesus man you dont deserve that money that is sending your dissrespecting undeserving ass to college you make me sick

Well its a loan which I will be paying back so its not like Im being given free money. While Im grateful for the chance to further my education I will not toss my beliefs out the window just because they conflict with the states views.

A hypothetical example would be if someone saved my life by say performing CPR on me but he later goes and robs someone. I may be greatful for the fact that he saved my life but I wont look the other way when hes comitting a crime and if he said, "Well I saved your life so you owe me" I would say yes Im very grateful that you saved my life but that doesnt excuse your criminal actions. Should you need help with something that isnt morally wrong then call me up and Ill be more then glad to aid you.

[shade]

Just goes to show how much trouble the Bush administration considers itself in. Just goes to show the relentlessness of the liberal press. Dont you find it interesting that every single damn time they release classified documents it vindicates them, yet the press under-reports it and people still hate them and want yet more classified stuff released?

As Bush is now claiming, this war was to free the Iraqi people (not WMDs), so should we be torturing them? Please show me this quote. It doesnt exist. Have fun looking for it.

Either that or bring them here..... Cuba. Its under federal jurisdiction when its good, and not when its bad ;)

Should Americans be allowed to murder the inmates at Guantanamo Bay? Dead people dont talk, and that defeats the purpose.

Should Americans be allowed to prosecute the inmates for capital crimes, convict and execute them without the inmates leaving the prison, having a jury, or submitting any appeal? Again..... dead people dont talk.

Should Americans be allowed to withhold this information from Britain and its other allies in this 'war on terror'? If it serves our purpose, yes.

Guantanamo Bay was created for one purpose: to execute people. Not a single person has been executed in Cuba. As usual, every point you have made is moot and irrelevant.

Buddy, Amnesty International says the US violates more human rights domestically than China and the Soviet union. They say that Cuba has better health care than us. If you are going to talk about anything, try pulling your head out of your ass first.

I'm sure they have a website so look for yourself. Its sort of a rule here that if you are going to spew something that is most likely bullshit, the burden of proof is on you to prove its validity, not us to disprove it.

Believe what you will, but God forbid you actually have to look something up. God forbid you back up your shit. :rolleyes:

I provided you with the source and a time frame to narrow down your search, so you can probably find it yourself. If it were true, you wouldnt have narrow anything down. If something like this was credible, at the very least, the BBC or LA/NY Times would cover it every single day for months like they have with Abu Ghraib on the front page.

But I don't believe for one minute that every detainee subjected to torture was a murderer or torturer themselves. Correct. If torture or discomfort are to be used, it must be done responsibly and only with people that we have very, very strong evidence against. Apparently some of the victims were later released after they figured out they were not a threat or had no information of use. That is where the problem lies.

then 10 years down the road you can tell your inbred and ADD canidate children Real mature.

[mps]

Dead people dont talk, and that defeats the purpose.

Wow, that's some mighty extraordinary reasoning you have there. Care to explain it?

Not a single person has been executed in Cuba.

Right, because you have not seen it on the BBC it has yet to happen? Did you catch what I said earlier about the Nazi regime? Do you believe everything the news networks tell you?

Buddy, Amnesty International says the US violates more human rights domestically than China and the Soviet union. They say that Cuba has better health care than us.

All true.

Its sort of a rule here that if you are going to spew something that is most likely bullshit, the burden of proof is on you to prove its validity, not us to disprove it.

Oh, its sort of a rule? Well in that case I will now state that I am above your rules because I have my own purposes to look out for. Yeah, that's right, I'm stealing your government's tactic. And if I may point out the obvious: are you not claiming that my claims are false without providing any sources?

If it were true, you wouldnt have narrow anything down. If something like this was credible, at the very least, the BBC or LA/NY Times would cover it every single day for months like they have with Abu Ghraib on the front page.

Right, since when is the news impartial?

Real mature.

I wasn't aware that maturity was allowed here. And didn't you tell me to pull my head out of my ass? I love hypocrisy! USA! USA! USA!

[Viceroy]

Just goes to show the relentlessness of the liberal press. Dont you find it interesting that every single damn time they release classified documents it vindicates them, yet the press under-reports it and people still hate them and want yet more classified stuff released?

The liberal press under reports it? May I suggest the BBC then? They've had extensive coverage on their website all day, not to mention their radio stations, and I guarantee it will be the top story on the 10 o'clock news.

The question is not how they were released or what the documents were, or even when the next batch is to be released. The question is why were they released? This can be answered by looking at every other time the Bush administration has had to resort to declassifying documents because, basically, people don't trust Bush as far as they could throw him. Ofcourse they have good reason, considering the Bush administration's habit of screwing up intelligence, or just flat out lying.

A President that felt sufficiently sure of world support would not feel the need to announce that he does not advocate the use of torture. Considering he is the leader of the free world, one would assume this is a given. Nevertheless public trust in him is so small he has to go on the record to show that not only does he deplore torture, but he has the documents to prove it.

It comes to a desperate state of affairs when the President of the United States has to prove that he didn't order the use of torture. The idea of it should be unthinkable, but such is the filth of the Bush administration maybe it was necessary.

[shade]

May I suggest the BBC then? They've had extensive coverage on their website all day, not to mention their radio stations, and I guarantee it will be the top story on the 10 o'clock news. May I suggest that MSNBC, CBS, and CNN have more influence on our election than the BBC?

[pidgeball6]

Viceroy, it's a negative story with big implications, so of course there was a media frenzy created that could only be settled with something that extreme. Clinton couldn't find any documents proving he didn't get a bj in the oval office, and the media wasn't going to let it go so what did he do? He went on national television and said he didn't. What is the appropriate action when speculation is the headline?

[shade]

Wow, that's some mighty extraordinary reasoning you have there. Care to explain it? Ok... umm... if you are torturing people for information, killing them prevents you from getting information, and thus defeats the purpose. Could you possibly explain why you cant deduct such a simple line of logic? I will remember to tone down my deep thoughts in the future so you can understand.

Did you catch what I said earlier about the Nazi regime? Do you believe everything the news networks tell you? Do you believe anything that disagrees with you?

All true. Congradulations on losing all credibility. Now no matter what you say (even if it is true) will always be ignored or disregarded.

I am above your rules because I have my own purposes to look out for. Yeah, that's right, I'm stealing your government's tactic. So your purpose is not to persuade readers? What is your purpose then? To just be a jackass?

And if I may point out the obvious: are you not claiming that my claims are false without providing any sources? For a statement that implies it is grounded in factual reality, yes, its false without a source. For a philosophical statement, no source is needed.

Right, since when is the news impartial? Only CSPAN is impartial. Most bias leans towards your political spectrum, and that still is not enough, apparently.

[mps]

Ok... umm... if you are torturing people for information, killing them prevents you from getting information, and thus defeats the purpose. Could you possibly explain why you cant deduct such a simple line of logic? I will remember to tone down my deep thoughts in the future so you can understand.

They are not detaining people in Guantanamo Bay solely for the purpose of getting information, they are removing their perceived enemies. They are murdering those who they believe pose a threat to them now, or possibly could in the future.

Do you believe anything that disagrees with you?

Not when it's wrong.

So your purpose is not to persuade readers? What is your purpose then?

To state what I know. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.

Most bias leans towards your political spectrum, and that still is not enough, apparently.

My political spectrum? Perhaps you could tell me what that is.

[shade]

They are murdering those who they believe pose a threat to them now, or possibly could in the future. Most of the people in Guantanimo were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. If they wanted them dead, why didnt they just shoot them then? Why waste millions of dollars per detainee if your goal is to kill them. A bullet is much cheaper.

You are going to have to start using logic if you want to talk to the big kids here.

Not when it's wrong. And Im going to assume that includes.... everything that disagrees with you?

To state what I know. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. That is awfully pointless. It achieves nothing. A statement is a means to an end, and you have effectively stated that you do not care about the end. You are simply going to use a means.......... for no end.

My political spectrum? Perhaps you could tell me what that is. Extremely, extremely, left.

[mps]

Most of the people in Guantanimo were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

Really? You sure they were not in the United States? Some are from Afghanistan, but you should not have used the word 'most'.

You are going to have to start using logic if you want to talk to the big kids here.

I have no doubt in my mind that I am dealing with kids here.

That is awfully pointless. It achieves nothing. A statement is a means to an end, and you have effectively stated that you do not care about the end. You are simply going to use a means.......... for no end.

Exactly right. There is no end. I'm not trying to convice you, but rather stating what I want to.

Extremely, extremely, left.

That's so crazy that it must be true, and I have a feeling that statement is how you take in the news each night.

Sleep tightly.

[shade]

Some are from Afghanistan, but you should not have used the word 'most'. Unless you have legitimate proof that states otherwise, yes, 'most' is the right word.

Exactly right. There is no end. I'm not trying to convice you, but rather stating what I want to. You have not stated anything about wanting to do anything. All you have done is bash the US. If you are not trying to convince anyone of anything, you may as well go outside and tell the fucking wind or your car about your views.

[GunsofTheSouth]

We have every damn right to be doing it!

[Viceroy]

You have not stated anything about wanting to do anything. All you have done is bash the US. If you are not trying to convince anyone of anything, you may as well go outside and tell the fucking wind or your car about your views.

What he's saying is that he doesn't care what other people think because he's not trying to convince them, however, he'll still write what he likes. That's fair enough.

When he wrote he'll write what he wants to write, I think you interpretted that as meaning "I'll write what I want to happen".