Put him to death. He must be evil.

[Clodfobble]

Under what other American administration were thousands of people imprisoned, sexually and physically abused, denied basic human rights, denied access by a lawyer or family members, and put into solitary confinement for months - all without even being charged with a serious crime.

During WWII all Asian immigrants were rounded up and kept in containment camps until the war was over. The only reason they didn't do it for German immigrants too was because there were just too many of them for it to be feasible.

No other president - not even Nixon - did what the George Jr admininstration condoned. We can now suspect it even encouraged... Abu Ghraib.

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I believe that more prisoner torture than this has gone on during every war. A friend of my dad's served in Vietnam as a translator. He was originally told he'd be translating intercepted documents, transmissions, etc., but when he got over there he found out he'd be translating interrogation sessions. For over a year, he translated the pleas and screams of prisoners of war being tortured, and more damningly, he says that in that entire time, not one prisoner left the room alive.

The only difference between this and any other war is that there were digital cameras and a pesky little internet to send the proof over. Whether or not you believe it's right, this is NOT the first time America has tortured or humiliated its detainees.

Originally posted by Clodfobble


During WWII all Asian immigrants were rounded up and kept in containment camps until the war was over. The only reason they didn't do it for German immigrants too was because there were just too many of them for it to be feasible.

True, they were rounded up, but they were not tortured or subjected to the kind of treatment the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have been subjected to. It was certainly a great injustice, but it pales in comparison when held alongside Guantanamo

Originally posted by Clodfobble
[i]
The only difference between this and any other war is that there were digital cameras and a pesky little internet to send the proof over. Whether or not you believe it's right, this is NOT the first time America has tortured or humiliated its detainees.

Ahem, ever hear of a little incident called My Lai? There was pesky international media to cover that one. Yes, this country has committed atrocities in the past. So having set a precedent, as it were, its fine to continue to commit atrocities?

Frankly, Nixon is beginning to almost look good when set aside George W. At least tricky Dick was just in it for himself, and didn't believe himself on some crazed mission from God.

[Clodfobble]

So having set a precedent, as it were, its fine to continue to commit atrocities?

No of course not. But tw was ranting about how awful this administration is and how no other administration in the past has been as bad. I'm merely pointing out that many administrations in the past have been this bad, and to sit there and point to Bush as some sort of maniacal sadist who planned this all from the beginning is silly.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
However the rate of generation of new evils will go down dramatically.

Somehow I doubt that.

Evidence would indicate that painting politicians with a broad brush of venality and moral deficiency isn't likely to lead you astray.

[tw]

Originally posted by Clodfobble
I'm merely pointing out that many administrations in the past have been this bad, and to sit there and point to Bush as some sort of maniacal sadist who planned this all from the beginning is silly.

So McNamara or Nixon ordered torture in Viet Nam? Lets keep the issue straight rather than trying to paint George Jr as equal to any other president. Its not that torture existed. It's that torture and other such abuses were ordered and condoned at the highest levels of government.

Please name another post WWII administration that condoned torture at such high levels; that intentionally setup a prison in Guantanamo so that American principles of law could be intentionally violated. Is it a rant to note such autrosities ordered at the highest levels of government - or a blunt statement of fact? Appreciate the difference.

There have been other administration where autrosities and Constitutional violations existed. But only Nixon outrightly ordered such actions - repeatedly. How many presidents viewed the Constitution of the US as an impediment rather than an American principle? I can only think of two administrations that did this routinely - Nixon and George Jr.

How quickly the overall scope is lost if we only challenge one point. The George Jr administatration not just condones torture and violations of fundamental human rights. How many other presidents pervert science to promote a religious agenda? How many previous presidents encourage their religion beliefs to be imposed on others. How many other presidents would order a 'man to Mars' at the expense of all other space science only so that he could look as good as Kennedy? This president is that bad just too many times repeated.

To make your point, you must first show how torture in Vietnam was ordered in Washingtion. When in the history of this country did we setup a prison camp with the outright intent of violating both fundamental human right and American laws? No other president was ever so evil (as George Jr uses the word) as to do that. Make your point. Show me another administration that routinely violates American principles - on direct orders from the President? Please - show me where torture in VietNam was ordered at the highest levels in Washington?

Its only a rant if it is based in emotion. Facts say this president is that bad and possibily worse. At mininum, this is an immoral man who would have done well in the Spanish Inquistion.

[Clodfobble]

Show me another administration that routinely violates American principles - on direct orders from the President? Please - show me where torture in VietNam was ordered at the highest levels in Washington?

Are you saying you have proof that George Jr. ordered the torture himself? The highest evidence anyone's shown me is that Rumsfeld condoned it.

[tw]

Originally posted by Clodfobble
Show me another administration that routinely violates American principles - on direct orders from the President? Please - show me where torture in VietNam was ordered at the highest levels in Washington?

Are you saying you have proof that George Jr. ordered the torture himself? The highest evidence anyone's shown me is that Rumsfeld condoned it.

Rumsfeld is the highest levels of the George Jr administration. A question remains of where in topmost government this torture was authorized. But the guilt does not even stop there. Posted previously:

What is the common factor among Abu Ghraib, Brooklyn House of Detention, Guantanamo, and the Passaic County jail? The George Jr administration.

Guantanamo is directly traceable to George Jr himself. It was created specifically to violate American laws and international treaties. It was created specifically so that American principles could be violated. George Jr made Gitmoizing possible. No other president dared to do that. None. Gitmoizing is an all time new low for all American presidents.

The Economist further defines the problem even way back on 8 May 2003 when most Americans believed this president was honest:

This claim that America is free do whatever it wishes with the Guantanamo prisoners is unworthy of a nation which has cherished the rule of law from its very birth, and represents a more extreme approach than it has taken even during periods of all-out war. It has alienated many other governments at a time when the effort to defeat terrorism requires more international co-operation in law enforcement than ever before. America's casual brushing aside of the Geneva Conventions, which require at least a review of each prisoner's status by an independent tribunal, made America's invocation of these same conventions on behalf of its own soldiers during the recent Iraq conflict sound hypocritical.

And the Economist is just being nice. Evil (according to George Jr's definition) does not just stop there. Even more evil is found with and around George Jr. Again from the Economist of 17 Jun 2004 entitled "What on earth were they thinking?"

Last week, senators questioned John Ashcroft on this issue—and the attorney-general refused to hand over the memo in question. But in another sign that the administration's power over its subordinates is slipping, somebody leaked the full text to the Washington Post. The details make ugly reading for any friend of America.

The memo, which dates from August 2002, looks at the sections of the legal code (2340-2340A) which implement the UN Convention against Torture. It claims torture can be justified on three grounds.

First, it narrows the definition of torture, saying American law “was intended to proscribe only the most egregious conduct.” ... the memo goes further than most ordinary opinion would in defining torture as “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.” On the face of it, that means sliding needles under fingernails or holding someone's head under water to the point of drowning would not count as torture under the law.

Constitutionally, its second argument is no less striking. This is that the president can do whatever he wants in war, or, as the memo puts it, “enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his commander-in-chief authority.” Interrogations, the memo says, are a “core function of the commander-in-chief.” ...

This comes near saying that the president is above the law when acting as commander-in-chief in wartime. No other president has made such a claim. ...

In addition, the memo claims the particular law in question (2340) cannot apply because it offends against presidential power. This law governs the activities of Americans abroad, so it applies almost entirely to soldiers and spies—people under the president's command. In other words, the memo argues that the law cannot really apply at all. Yet there is a long tradition in the United States against interpreting laws in such a way as to render them meaningless.

The memo's third argument is that, in rare cases when acts are so egregious that they amount to torture, and do not challenge presidential power, torturers are still able to claim immunity. They could only be prosecuted if it were shown their main intent was to inflict pain. If they intended to extract information (presumably the point for all but sadists), that would be a defence under American law according to the memo.

Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of international law at Johns Hopkins University (and often a defender of the Bush administration), points out that the memo defines its task oddly. Instead of looking at “what is the law governing torture?” it asks “what can we do and remain within the law?” As a result, the memo either ignores or glides over American and international laws that ban or limit torture.

Yes, it appears even George Jr did what was necessary to condone torture. Name me any other president that does this and so many other things anti-American. You cannot.

George Jr virtually says either the law does not apply to him or that torture is justified when the torturer needs information. Please anyone - cite any previous administration that was that corrupt. George Jr not only subverts the principles of America. But his administration's 'secret' memo (in the second argument) even has George Jr is 'acting like a king'. Same reasoning Richard Nixon attempted when he refused to hand over the Watergate tapes. The Supreme Court was so outraged by that arguement that they voted a resounding 9-0 against Nixon.

George Jr is so scummy as to view laws as impediments rather than principles upon which all Americans stand. That makes George Jr as bad as Richard Nixon - even if George Jr did not specifically authorize torture. He did what was necessary to authorize torture. No other president ever did that.

Did George Jr specifically order torture? Does not matter. He all but authorized it with this memo that he and Ashcroft refused to release. How many more corrupt actitivities are they hiding? Is Halliburton just the tip of another massive iceberg?

No other administration ever attempted authorizing torture. Thank god for American patriots who are leaking - coming out of the woodwork everywhere - saying they too see an evil (as George Jr defines evil) president. How many more CIA agents will the George Jr administration intentionally out to seek revenge? If evil existed, then it is George Jr and his administration. The long list of anti-American activities is just too damning.

Please feel free to step in and show us that this man is moral. Show us how he upholds American principles and Christian values. I hear a resounding silence because George Jr is that corrupt. Please feel free to prove George Jr would never condone torture. Torture was a tool used by god's choosen ones. Will George Jr be the exception? That memo does says otherwise. That memo says George Jr did everything he could to authorize torture as religous extremists have done throughtout history. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisiton. Nobody expected that a mental midget would end up President of the United States. We have the president that religous extremists love.

[lookout123]

i think the nude pyramids and things of the like were ludicrous, but no one has said that was a directive from above.
torture? what i have read shows that rumsfeld did endorse torture, extreme interrogation techniques. but i didn't see anywhere that he said "make them stick their fingers in their anus..." stupid troops got out of hand. bust them, grind them into the dirt, and move on.

as far as gitmo goes? that is not new. in WWII german officers died in large numbers in the arizona desert. they were removed from the continent and confined as POW's until the end of the war. at that time they were transported back to germany unless they chose to stay in the states. pow's don't and shouldn't have the same legal rights as a citizen arrested for a crime.

Originally posted by lookout123


as far as gitmo goes? that is not new. in WWII german officers died in large numbers in the arizona desert. they were removed from the continent and confined as POW's until the end of the war. at that time they were transported back to germany unless they chose to stay in the states. pow's don't and shouldn't have the same legal rights as a citizen arrested for a crime.

Once again, having set a precedent, we now get to continue acting as amoral animals? While POW's do not have the same rights as citizens, they still have basic rights as human beings, and the US DID sign off on the Geneva Convention. So the US gets to treat human beings like pond scum and still expects the respect of other nations and wants our rhetoric about democracy and the "American Way" to be accepted by the rest of the world? Get real.

[blue]

And god forbid we look cross eyed when 5 or 6 arab looking guys get on a plane tomorrow....we can't hurt their feelings or inconvenience anyone.

I was reading TIME today, some of those in the biggest "cells" we are worried about are FORMER Abu Grhaib residents.

I don't know what the fuck to think anymore.

Acually I do, praise god, god is great.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by lookout123
as far as gitmo goes? that is not new. in WWII german officers died in large numbers in the arizona desert. they were removed from the continent and confined as POW's until the end of the war. at that time they were transported back to germany unless they chose to stay in the states. pow's don't and shouldn't have the same legal rights as a citizen arrested for a crime.

The Arizona desert is on US soil. Bush put his prisoners in Cuba so he could pretend that his actions weren't under the jurisdiction of the US court system.

[blue]

Or did he put them there so they can't fuck us over using our own media corrupted screwed up legal system?

[Happy Monkey]

Great. To avoid a "media corrupted" legal system, try to take them out of any legal system whatsoever. No corruption there, right?

[lookout123]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
The Arizona desert is on US soil. Bush put his prisoners in Cuba so he could pretend that his actions weren't under the jurisdiction of the US court system.

BS - he put them there because it was an available prison with 0 chance of escape, not near a major metropolitan area. in WWII arizona was pretty much vacant. the old POW camps are in the center of phoenix now. they would be treated the same whether they were in new york, la, guam, or gitmo.
and pow's shouldn't be covered under the US court system. why the hell would we grant pow's access to the courts when our own soldiers don't even have that access?

[Happy Monkey]

Don't call me for BS if you don't know what you're talking about.

from CNN
The appeals could determine whether the Guantanamo facility, officially part of Cuba, can truly be considered sovereign, since it is absolutely controlled by U.S. forces. The Navy makes monthly payments of $34 to the Cuban government to lease the land, part of a binding agreement reached a century ago. If the justices decide Guantanamo is technically Cuban soil, they may lack the power to oversee foreign prisoners held there.

Bush was arguing that US courts had no juristiction because Gitmo was officially in Cuba.

from CNN But the U.S. government refuses to classify the detainees officially as POWs. Officials suggest the Taliban and al Qaeda members don't deserve that designation.

If the people in Gitmo were designated POWs, there would be less controversy. But Bush doesn't want to do so, because there is a level of treatment that the US has agreed to accord to POWs.

The entire point of Guantanamo Bay is to put people in a legal black hole, where neither the US court system nor US treaties can be used to prevent abuses.