Our Torturer-in-Chief***Graphic Images***

Kefka

New member
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...ep22,0,7815275.column?coll=la-home-commentary

WE DON'T torture detainees, President Bush has repeatedly insisted; we just make use of lawful "alternative procedures" of interrogation.

But if everything we've done is lawful, why is the White House suddenly so desperate to get a deal with Congress that would "clarify" Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention and amend the War Crimes Act, which criminalizes violations of the article?

According to Bush, the problem is that Common Article 3, which prohibits "cruel," "humiliating" and "degrading treatment" and "outrages upon personal dignity," is vague. He claims it doesn't give "clear" guidance about what is permitted and what is prohibited during interrogations.

The passage of this legislation will translate that every American soldier captured henceforward can expect precisely what we're doing to 'detainees', period end of discussion.

This is what the Geneva Conventions, through the adherence by the signatories to the principals expressed, was supposed to prevent.

Also, as the writer points out, this is a 'get out of jail free' card for all those in this administration who might otherwise be prosecuted under any War Crimes Act.
 
The sleazebag liberal Democrats at the LA Times whined:

But if everything we've done is lawful, why is the White House suddenly so desperate to get a deal with Congress that would "clarify" Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention and amend the War Crimes Act, which criminalizes violations of the article?

Because as Bush repeatedly said, you heroin-shooting LA types, he doesn't want the interrogators charged with war crimes by some international tribunal. Which is possible depending on how you interpret Common Article 3. Duh. He's told this to these knuckleheads 50 times a day, maybe he should tattoo it on their foreheads or something. But then who'd expect liberal hacks to actually pay attention to the president's actual words? It's too hard!

-Ogami
 
One man's torture is not anothers. Example: Being forced to listen to Christine Aquilera is not torture to some of us, but is to the detainees. Under common article 3, that act would be considered unlawful. Being interrogated by women is not torture to some of us, but is to the detainees, which also would be considered unlawful under common article 3.

How does the Geneva Convention apply to terrorists?
 
Ogami said:
The sleazebag liberal Democrats at the LA Times whined:



Because as Bush repeatedly said, you heroin-shooting LA types, he doesn't want the interrogators charged with war crimes by some international tribunal. Which is possible depending on how you interpret Common Article 3. Duh. He's told this to these knuckleheads 50 times a day, maybe he should tattoo it on their foreheads or something. But then who'd expect liberal hacks to actually pay attention to the president's actual words? It's too hard!

-Ogami

Of course he doesn't want them prosecuted. The last thing he needs is these guys pointing a finger right back at the White House and his administration and spilling the beans that Bush, Cheney and Rummy ordered them to use whatever means necessary. That puts their butts in the hot seat and heads on the chopping block. What would the US do if the world demanded that George Bush face war crimes trials? It’s not like we haven’t demanded that world courts try other leaders.

I was reading an article today that stated that the American people are quick to point the finger at other governments and scream that there’s a scandal, or corruption and that things like mass genocide, unprovoked wars and mass slaughters are beyond the higher moral principles of the United States. We have the arrogant view that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, and superior.

And yet we have the massacre of more than 100,000 people in the Philippines, the first nuclear attack ever at Hiroshima and an unprovoked invasion of Baghdad. Yet US sponsored violence doesn't feel as wrong or as worthy of prosecution in internationally sanctioned criminal courts as the atrocities of Congo, Darfur, Rwanda, and the Nazis

The author made a damn good case for comparisons between our current administration and some of the other immoral and unethical tyrants in recent history as people from other countries might view them.

You fucking conservatives seem to treat Bush like a god who can do no wrong. You have no more clue as to what’s gone on behind closed doors or under the table with this administration than the average American. Yet you continue to turn a blind eye on even the possibility that he’s lied, cheated and screwed the American people for the last 6 years. Even a complete moron would admit that the possibility exists. He’s only human, and yeah, with world opinion against him and 2/3 of the country thinking he’s a fuck up, if I were he, I’d be doing whatever was necessary to cover my ass. The court of popular opinion can change fast and with the up coming elections, all he needs is to lose the majority support and bingo, he could be slammed with so many probes and investigations he’ll make Watergate, Iran contra, Whitewater and every other presidential scandal combined look like a day at the park.
 
"You fucking conservatives seem to treat Bush like a god who can do no wrong. You have no more clue as to what’s gone on behind closed doors or under the table with this administration than the average American. Yet you continue to turn a blind eye on even the possibility that he’s lied."

Oh, please, enlighten us with what you know and provide your proof. And, please, no conclusory statements from equally blind liberals.
 
Sarek wrote:

You fucking conservatives seem to treat Bush like a god who can do no wrong. You have no more clue as to what’s gone on behind closed doors or under the table with this administration than the average American.

You just can't conceive of the fact that Bush cares about the American soldiers and government employees working under him. That's sad, not to mention bizarre.

-Ogami
 
I'm a retired American soldier and currently a government employee. I can guarantee you; he doesn't give a shit about any of us except his own close circle of crooneys.
 
eloisel said:
Oh, please, enlighten us with what you know and provide your proof. And, please, no conclusory statements from equally blind liberals.

One word,

Ogami.

Just read back in any one of the thousand topics in this forum. While there's a few that are sceptical supporters of Bush, the majority blindly support him and his policies believing that he can do no wrong.

Hell, I was a partial supporter of Bush until I retired from the military. Then all the "intelligence", all the "facts" that he sent us into Iraq for, turned out to be bullshit. And what's more, that little pin dick was going into Iraq one way or another. He planned it before 9/11 even happened. He just used 9/11 as the golden goose to justify it when he had no other justification.

That's how much he cares about America and it's people. He suspended the search for the one responsible for 9/11 to pursue a bully that his daddy couldn't beat up.
 
Sarek, I've been watching the Democrats scream "BUSH LIED!!!", with all three exclaimation marks, since 2000.

Before he took office, I read month after month of personal attacks against Bush, liberal journalists convinced Bush somehow destroyed the state of Texas as governor, and that everyone in Texas supposedly hated him for his evil. Yet somehow, Bush carried Texas. Nothing came of the left's efforts.

Before September 11th 2001, I read month after month of articles screaming that Bush was somehow going to be impeached for what happened at Enron, Worldcom, Arther-Anderson, and Tyco, as if he was somehow CEO of those companies. Month after month of articles screaming that Bush lied. What came of the left's efforts? Nothing.

Also before September 11th 2001, I watched Bush take his tour of Europe, where he was met by crowds of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of leftists, anarchists, communists, socialists, and the usual rabble of the left, screaming that Bush was the illegitimate president, that he wanted to DESTROY the planet, and above all, that he was a LIAR.

In all cases, the left was convinced Bush had lied about something, they just weren't sure yet. Following me so far, Sarek?

Then September 11th 2001 came along. And the invasion of Afghanistan came in November 2001. Years later, in March 2003, the invasion of Iraq came along. And in all that time since then, there has probably been a million articles, columns, commentaries, speeches, and TV interviews asserting Bush lied about a trillion different things.

Going back to 2000, Sarek, I see nothing new. Just the same team of leftists convinced Bush must be lying about something, and what that is changes from week to week, month after month, based on whatever is currently trendy amongst the left. And it's all about nothing.

So you keep your short-term memory, which doesn't last for more than a week like a goldfish, where you believe Bush has lied about something new, each and every week. I am not a dupe or a fool for simply looking at the entire record of Bush's critics, and being able to see that they have been playing this silly political game since the guy was governor.

When you can see beyond the latest scare headline of "Bush lied" that changes from week to week, you let me know. But you can't tell me I'm not paying attention or that I'm glossing over Bush's record, when it is you that can't see that week after week of new charges that "Bush lied" is simply the same old game by those who seek their way back into power at any cost. And yes, that includes lying about Bush.

In that, Bush isn't even their real target. All they care about is power. And he's simply the person in the way. That explains why hundreds of Democrat Senators and Representatives can do a 360 on what they said about Saddam Hussein in 1998 to what they say today. It explains why every statement or action by Bush is cast in the darkest terms (He wants to spy on our library books! He wants to hear our phone calls! He wants to torture!), it never ends. It will never end, until the other party gets back into power.

The ends justify the means. When you're a Democrat out of power. And Sarek wants me to know how he once supported Bush, but now believes the claims made against him? Only if you accept a different conspiracy week after week, month after month, from 2000 to 2006. I've seen them all, and they're all hot air. Because they don't even care about Bush, he's just their convenient target in their climb back to power. Pity you don't see that.

-Ogami
 
I think you will find every administration has contingency plans for military action regarding several countries. A military of our size doesn't get coordinated and moved overnight. Logistics isn't the only factor. Legal aspects, UN chit chats, and alliances have to be considered. That is to our detriment as the insurgents apparently just have to show up and they magically have weapons, food, other support, and no holding to the UN or any other country. They don't have to seek permission to fly over any country's air space, use their sea ports, or land bases either.

Saddam is responsible for his situation. The U.S. was not alone in demanding regime change in Iraq. Other countries offered Saddam refuge. I thought it hilarious the Saudi King offered it to Saddam. Perhaps Saddam rejected the offer because of the tit for tat retribution the Saudis practice and figured he'd be gassed, poisoned, tortured, starved and raped as he had done to others.

Actually, the justification for invading Iraq was not 9/11 but Saddam's history of refusal to comply with the weapons inspections imposed because of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. You really ought to read the weapons inspections reports. Time and again, an investigator reported that he inspected a site, questioned what happened to the inventory of weapons that Saddam reported were at that location, and was told by the persons at the site that the weapons were destroyed earlier. Investigator just checked it off his sheet with the notation. Nice - taking those people at their word and not demanding any proof whatsoever. Those people were the same ones that threw babies out of hospital incubators when they invaded Kuwait.

The search for Osama bin laden has not ceased. There is still a faction of our military and allies looking for him but the job is mostly delegated to Pakistani tribes. If you look at where Osama is most likely holed up - in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan - you will see that finding him is akin to finding a needle in a haystack. Osama needs dialysis so you can bet there are operatives searching for him where he may get that treatment. Still, even when Osama is dead or captured, it won't be the end of al-Qaida. If it were, then allocating all our resources to his capture would be the absolute right thing to do.
 
Ogami said:
Sarek, I've been watching the Democrats scream "BUSH LIED!!!", with all three exclaimation marks, since 2000.

Before he took office, I read month after month of personal attacks against Bush, liberal journalists convinced Bush somehow destroyed the state of Texas as governor, and that everyone in Texas supposedly hated him for his evil. Yet somehow, Bush carried Texas. Nothing came of the left's efforts.

Before September 11th 2001, I read month after month of articles screaming that Bush was somehow going to be impeached for what happened at Enron, Worldcom, Arther-Anderson, and Tyco, as if he was somehow CEO of those companies. Month after month of articles screaming that Bush lied. What came of the left's efforts? Nothing.

Also before September 11th 2001, I watched Bush take his tour of Europe, where he was met by crowds of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of leftists, anarchists, communists, socialists, and the usual rabble of the left, screaming that Bush was the illegitimate president, that he wanted to DESTROY the planet, and above all, that he was a LIAR.

In all cases, the left was convinced Bush had lied about something, they just weren't sure yet. Following me so far, Sarek?

Then September 11th 2001 came along. And the invasion of Afghanistan came in November 2001. Years later, in March 2003, the invasion of Iraq came along. And in all that time since then, there has probably been a million articles, columns, commentaries, speeches, and TV interviews asserting Bush lied about a trillion different things.

Going back to 2000, Sarek, I see nothing new. Just the same team of leftists convinced Bush must be lying about something, and what that is changes from week to week, month after month, based on whatever is currently trendy amongst the left. And it's all about nothing.

So you keep your short-term memory, which doesn't last for more than a week like a goldfish, where you believe Bush has lied about something new, each and every week. I am not a dupe or a fool for simply looking at the entire record of Bush's critics, and being able to see that they have been playing this silly political game since the guy was governor.

When you can see beyond the latest scare headline of "Bush lied" that changes from week to week, you let me know. But you can't tell me I'm not paying attention or that I'm glossing over Bush's record, when it is you that can't see that week after week of new charges that "Bush lied" is simply the same old game by those who seek their way back into power at any cost. And yes, that includes lying about Bush.

In that, Bush isn't even their real target. All they care about is power. And he's simply the person in the way. That explains why hundreds of Democrat Senators and Representatives can do a 360 on what they said about Saddam Hussein in 1998 to what they say today. It explains why every statement or action by Bush is cast in the darkest terms (He wants to spy on our library books! He wants to hear our phone calls! He wants to torture!), it never ends. It will never end, until the other party gets back into power.

The ends justify the means. When you're a Democrat out of power. And Sarek wants me to know how he once supported Bush, but now believes the claims made against him? Only if you accept a different conspiracy week after week, month after month, from 2000 to 2006. I've seen them all, and they're all hot air. Because they don't even care about Bush, he's just their convenient target in their climb back to power. Pity you don't see that.

-Ogami

The Republicans hold the power right now. Any concerted effort to take a real look at what's been going on and to hold Bush accountable if there have been war crimes committed by this administration is doomed to failure as long as that continues. Many have started speaking out about it, but few Republicans will actually have the nuts to go against the party line and bitch slap one of their own.

They are guilty of the same traits you claim the Democrats are guilty of. Toeing the line of convention and failure to grow a set of nads.
 
eloisel said:
Another note:

Bush daddy absolutely kicked Saddam's ass.

Here's a note for you.

If Bush senior had kicked Saddams ass, we wouldn't be in Iraq or having this discussion now.
 
eloisel said:
I think you will find every administration has contingency plans for military action regarding several countries. A military of our size doesn't get coordinated and moved overnight. Logistics isn't the only factor. Legal aspects, UN chit chats, and alliances have to be considered. That is to our detriment as the insurgents apparently just have to show up and they magically have weapons, food, other support, and no holding to the UN or any other country. They don't have to seek permission to fly over any country's air space, use their sea ports, or land bases either.

Most "presidents" don't have a plan of attack drawn up before their party even nominates them.

eloisel said:
Actually, the justification for invading Iraq was not 9/11 but Saddam's history of refusal to comply with the weapons inspections imposed because of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. You really ought to read the weapons inspections reports. Time and again, an investigator reported that he inspected a site, questioned what happened to the inventory of weapons that Saddam reported were at that location, and was told by the persons at the site that the weapons were destroyed earlier. Investigator just checked it off his sheet with the notation. Nice - taking those people at their word and not demanding any proof whatsoever. Those people were the same ones that threw babies out of hospital incubators when they invaded Kuwait.

Ok, I'm sorry for this, but you're going to have to pull your head out from under that rock. It's been documented that Bush both pointed a finger at Iraq as collaborators in the 9/11 plot AND claimed that Iraq was in the midst of supplying Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction.

Then, a few years later he publicly admitted there were no ties and that his administration had never linked the two.

Throughout 2002, the U.S. administration made it clear that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a major goal, although it offered to accept major changes in Iraqi military and foreign policy in lieu of this. Specifically, the stated justification for the invasion included Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction, alleged links with terrorist organizations, and human rights violations in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein government. Bush and his cabinet repeatedly linked the Hussein government to the September 11th attacks, despite the fact that there was no convincing evidence of Hussein's involvement.


Sept. 26, 2002

(AP) President Bush's national security adviser said al Qaeda operatives have found refuge in Baghdad, and accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime of helping Osama bin Laden's followers develop chemical weapons.

Condoleezza Rice's statements, aired Wednesday in a broadcast interview, are the strongest yet alleging contacts between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. Previously, evidence of the two working together was tenuous, or came from unreliable sources.

March 13, 2003

Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11.

President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his “freedom agenda” and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11.

“Nothing,” Bush defiantly answered.

To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

As has been repeatedly documented, Vice President Cheney cited “evidence” cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was “pretty well confirmed” that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers.

More generally, in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the administration encouraged the false impression that Saddam had a role in 9/11. Bush never stated then, as he does now, that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11. Only after the Iraq war began did Bush candidly acknowledge that Iraq was not operationally linked to 9/11.

Full transcript:

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

eloisel said:
The search for Osama bin laden has not ceased. There is still a faction of our military and allies looking for him but the job is mostly delegated to Pakistani tribes. If you look at where Osama is most likely holed up - in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan - you will see that finding him is akin to finding a needle in a haystack. Osama needs dialysis so you can bet there are operatives searching for him where he may get that treatment. Still, even when Osama is dead or captured, it won't be the end of al-Qaeda. If it were, then allocating all our resources to his capture would be the absolute right thing to do.

I think you meant to say "There is still a fraction of or military looking for him."

Let's farm out the hunt for the most dangerous criminal on the planet to a bunch of Pakistani tribes men. Not only are they Muslim, but the closer you get to the Paki border with Afghanistan, the more blurred the whole allegiance issue becomes. And it's not like we can put a whole lot of trust in Pakistan to begin with. They waiver more than John Kerry at a fundraiser.

Nice medical update by the way. Have you examined him recently?

Of course, no one can prove it either way. Hell, this week they're claiming he's dead but no seems to be able to prove it.

Personally, I think the only ailment the guy has is terminal hemorrhoids from sitting on the floor of a cave and laughing at the moron in the White House for the last 5 years.
 
Sarek said:
Here's a note for you.

If Bush senior had kicked Saddams ass, we wouldn't be in Iraq or having this discussion now.

They should have let General H. Norman Schwarzkopf Finnish the job. I read some of his books , the guy is a rocket scientist.

It was a shame to have a half assed war by stopping storming Norman from finishing the job.
 
bad dog said:
They should have let General H. Norman Schwarzkopf Finnish the job. I read some of his books , the guy is a rocket scientist.

It was a shame to have a half assed war by stopping storming Norman from finishing the job.

Bush senior was a moron and a piss poor military strategist. He also had a propensity for not listening to the voices of experience around him that possessed both the knowledge and the experience to conduct a military campaign. Like his little clown offspring, he was always right. Even when he was blatantly wrong.
 
Sarek said:
Here's a note for you.

If Bush senior had kicked Saddams ass, we wouldn't be in Iraq or having this discussion now.
Oh, he definitely kicked his ass. What he didn't do was go into Iraq and kill or capture him. Considering how this invasion of Iraq is going, I think his reasoning was sound.

I still think regime change was appropriate, that Saddam was a threat, that Iraq either had them or the capability of manufacturing chemical and biological weapons they would use. That Saddam aided al-Qaida and other terrorist networks is a fact. That Saddam considered himself the lone arab standing against the west is also a fact.

In my opinion, the current Bush failed when the Saudi king told him to go into Iraq, get the WMDs, then get out. Bush should have said, "Fine. You go with me." Then, when Saddam was toppled and no WMDS found, we could have left the Saudis to handle the aftermath. The Saudis were the ones most at risk from Saddam as dictator of Iraq. The Saudis are the ones most at risk if Iraq is taken over by the Shias which would align itself with the Iranian Shias.
 
Sarek said:
Nice medical update by the way. Have you examined him recently?
Oh, gawd, I wish that I could. Of course, I'd go to jail as a war criminal because the fact that I am female would be a humiliating experience for him. Besides, I have no medical training whatsoever so any examinations I performed would be of the "make them up as I go" variety.

Of course, no one can prove it either way. Hell, this week they're claiming he's dead but no seems to be able to prove it.
He's been reported dead umpteen times. I even read his funeral notice in an arab world newspaper back in December 2001 where officials reported having attended.

Personally, I think the only ailment the guy has is terminal hemorrhoids from sitting on the floor of a cave and laughing at the moron in the White House for the last 5 years.
I suspect he is laughing at all of us over the division he has created. He doesn't have to defeat us as our infighting will do that for him. Divide and conquer.
 
Kefka said:
Check your facts.
I suggest you check yours. Mine are based on intelligence reports dating back into the 70s while yours are conclusory self-serving statements to bolster your hatred of Bush and all things Republican.
 
Back
Top