Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws

[auryn]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

I guess it will be called "media bias."

[luvmetender]

I would call this "the truth"

[auryn]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

I would call this "the truth"

Which one? the article or my comment?

I think the article is the truth. It's just that on this board, stuff like this usually gets brushed off as media bias by certain people who shall remain nameless (at least until they come here and do it, hehe).

[twonky]

Originally Posted by auryn

Which one? the article or my comment?

I think the article is the truth. It's just that on this board, stuff like this usually gets brushed off as media bias by certain people who shall remain nameless (at least until they come here and do it, hehe).

I'm just trying to figure out what we're supposed to be debating with this article. It's all speculation so there isn't much substance yet.

What exactly do you have a problem with? What do you think people on the other side will object to? Why would people on the other side brush this off as media bias?

[mayor]

war is ****. I am all for torture if it will get us the information that will save American lives. Besides, can't remember where I read it, but the case has been made that the Geneva conventions don't apply to these prisoners. I say play rap music 24 hours a day cranked to volume 11 until they talk. That ought to do it.

Frankly, I don't care enough to research it. If they want to make a big deal out of it, have fun.

Mayor

[mayor]

Originally Posted by auryn

Which one? the article or my comment?

LOL, even auryn is confused by Luv's "contributions" to the discussion.

Proverbs 10:10

[prism68]

The title of this thread says it all:

"Bush claimed right to..."

He has a right to waive those laws as necessary. Obviously we are dealing with a group of people who don't respond to 'normal' interrogation procedures. So they did what they had to in an effort to get needed information to save lives.

Of course I don't condone the sex act stuff and all that other garbage (and neither does the Defense Dept.), but I would be REALLY hesitant to tie the hands of the people who are charged with defending our country.

Besides, the whole thing that really gets me is how big a deal this is while our OWN servicemen and women get treated LORD ONLY KNOWS how badly- but you never hear any of that.
People being beheaded all the time, and all of you are so worried about some prisoners being intimidated?

[monkee]

Rumsfeld's Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including:


_Putting detainees in "stress positions," such as standing, for up to four hours.


_Removing prisoners' clothes.


_Intimidating detainees with dogs.


_Interrogating prisoners for 20 hours at a time.


_Forcing prisoners to wear hoods during interrogations and transportation.


_Shaving detainees' heads and beards.





_Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking.

I have no problem with any of this. I don't see what the big deal is?

[bobbcat]

LOL, even auryn is confused by Luv's "contributions" to the discussion.

ROFL!!

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by auryn

Which one? the article or my comment?

I think the article is the truth. It's just that on this board, stuff like this usually gets brushed off as media bias by certain people who shall remain nameless (at least until they come here and do it, hehe).

The article, of course. Sorry for the confusion.

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by monkee

I have no problem with any of this. I don't see what the big deal is?

What about

Prisoners at Abu Ghraib were interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a time, kept hooded and naked, intimidated with dogs and forcibly shaved. Bush and other administration officials have said other treatment at the Iraqi prison, such as forcing prisoners to perform sex acts, beating them and piling them in a naked human pyramid, were unquestionably illegal.

Do you have a problem with that, or is it also not a "big deal."

[CagedTroll]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Ultimately what was developed at Gitmo was a "72-point matrix for stress and duress," which laid out types of coercion and the escalating levels at which they could be applied. These included the use of harsh heat or cold; —withholding food; hooding for days at a time; naked isolation in cold, dark cells for more than 30 days, and threatening (but not biting) by dogs. It also permitted limited use of "stress positions" designed to subject detainees to rising levels of pain.

[mayor]

The sexual stuff was just stupid soldiers doing stupid things. I don't believe any of that was endorsed by Bush. People force each other to commit sexual acts right here in America every day. The child porn trade runs rampant, kids are into prostitution, and innocent children are forever scarred on a daily basis. Of course bad is bad, but relatively speaking, its just another day... unfortunately.

Mayor

[monkee]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

What about

Do you have a problem with that, or is it also not a "big deal."

Bush and other administration officials have said other treatment at the Iraqi prison, such as forcing prisoners to perform sex acts, beating them and piling them in a naked human pyramid, were unquestionably illegal.

Yep, I have a problem with it, but so does the administration.

[CagedTroll]

I wandered over to Hannity's site, found a link to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now].

U.S. Soldier Beaten by MPs During Gitmo Drill; Army to Reopen Investigation

<SNIP>

In January 2003 — more than a year before allegations that U.S. military police abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib made headlines — Baker, 37, took part in what was supposed to be a simple training drill to teach soldiers how to deal with uncooperative detainees at Guantanamo. Baker, then a member of the 438th Military Police Company, put on an orange jumpsuit and posed as a prisoner.

"[I was supposed to] get in the cell, say nothing, just get underneath the bunk and say nothing. And, uh, to be uncooperative," Baker told ABC News.

‘I Could Not Breathe’

But Baker, who has since returned home to Kentucky, said the military police sent to get him out of the cell thought he was an actual prisoner as they pounded and choked him.

"I could not breathe," he said. "So after a few seconds, I assume, I began to panic because I could not breathe, and I was trying to get [up] and they just, you know, they just escalated the force. They just torqued it up. And from that point, the individual that was behind me slammed my head against the steel floor a few times, several times. And split my head over the top of on top of my right eye."

<SNIP>

The Army claims Baker's injuries were minor, but official medical documents show Baker sustained traumatic brain injury, leading to a complex seizure disorder.

But, HEY, this is WAR,... after all. As in "all's fair in...," so there's no cause for concern here whatsoever. Right?