Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt

[poncho]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
I really, really hate it when people invoke Christ's name when folks disagree with them.

But how else would they make themselves feel superior to the rest of us? </font>[/QUOTE]Can you show us the proof that his/our/anyones motivation is to feel superior?

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by poncho:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
I really, really hate it when people invoke Christ's name when folks disagree with them.

But how else would they make themselves feel superior to the rest of us? </font>[/QUOTE]Can you show us the proof that his/our/anyones motivation is to feel superior? </font>[/QUOTE]No they can't brother. The reason they react like this is they know that Biblical they're wrong on this issue and they have no biblical argument for thier position. If you can show me in the New Testament that it's OK to torture someone then I'll go along with it.

 

[just-want-peace]

One thing I am relatively certain of, Christ would not take a person's statements out of context and manufacture a totally different meaning as a verbal weapon against them!

He would either argue on the actual merits of the statements or He would refrain from comments.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Brother James:
No they can't brother.

I don't believe I need to.

The tone of your posts speak for themselves.

I'm happy that the two of you have found each other to share your spirtual high horse.

The reason they react like this is they know that Biblical they're wrong on this issue and they have no biblical argument for thier position.

If I'm "Biblically wrong", then it shouldn't be that hard to show me from scripture where I'm wrong, should it?

If you can show me in the New Testament that it's OK to torture someone then I'll go along with it.

If you can show me where in the New Testament it's not OK to torture someone, then I'll go along with that.

 

[poncho]

I'm happy that the two of you have found each other to share your spirtual high horse.

Humble tone?

 

[SeekingTruth]

BJ, So now you are willing to believe one of these un-Christlike soldiers who are so evil they have dared to "intimidate" these terrorists? By the way, did you have prayer meeting before you violated the copyright law when you rewrote and published this on this board? How un-Christlike.

Proof please.

 

[SeekingTruth]

I doubt very seriously that the treatment God ordered the Israelites to give to the people they conquered would gain the approval of the world today. He commanded them to kill man, woman, child, beast and burn their cities. How say you now? Don't try to twist this into saying that I have claimed He approves of torture and mistreatment. I use it to show you that the God of the Bible imposes harsh judgement on His enemies at times, and uses mankind to carry out that judgement.

So don't be so quick to condemn the actions of others, especially when you have no PROOF. (Caps intentional.)

 

[poncho]

So don't be so quick to condemn the actions of others, especially when you have no PROOF. (Caps intentional.)

Speaking of which, I asked you for your proof. (bold wasn't an accident)

Apparently you feel that you have all the facts that will prove what you say is undeniable truth and that myself and others are ignorant of them...so come out with them.

Where are these facts?

 

[SeekingTruth]

Check prior posts. You, BJ etc. made the accusations. At that time I asked for proof. All I got was a fillibuster. Since you made the accusation the burden of proof is on you. I have not made any accusations requiring proof.

Since you have provided none, I conclude there is none. Just more hate America trash being spewed by the radical left.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
BIR, read my post again. I said humiliation not torture. Since when is embarassment equivalent to torture? A few synonyms for torture are: torment, agony, pain, suffer, etc. Humiliating treatment is not in the same ballpark.

And yes, I still believe if a little embarrassment saved one American life it was worth it. Embarrassment and humiliation are not torture by any stretch of the imagination. Check you dictionary.

I don't need to look any further than your own words, SeekingTruth. It is right there: the ends justify the means. As a matter of fact, you even wrote it again.

I pointed out that you have implied that the ends justify the means. Interesting that you felt compelled to post twice to me. Like I said: you didn't have to add anything further.

Regards,
BiR

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
Check prior posts. You, BJ etc. made the accusations. At that time I asked for proof. All I got was a fillibuster. Since you made the accusation the burden of proof is on you. I have not made any accusations requiring proof.

Since you have provided none, I conclude there is none. Just more hate America trash being spewed by the radical left.

Okay I checked your prior posts. Just talking points, that doesn't even pass for evidence let alone proof. C'mon you can do better than that.

 

[SeekingTruth]

Question for BiR: Where have I said, in reference to torture, that the ends justifies the means? No place, no time, no way. I did say, and still maintain, that if embarassment of a bunch of murdering terrorists saves the life of even one American, it is worth it. Embarrass away.

As to justifying torture, please provide the quote where I said it. Otherwise, retract your statement. Don't lay some left wing interpretation that twists the words out as proof.

Poncho: Talking points . Get real. All I asked for is proof. You and your like-minded posters are the ones guilty of posting talking points. They are certainly not supported by any facts you have provided. If you have proof, provide it. If not you guys should not make such sweeping accusations. Provide the proof or quit posting unfounded rumors.

BJ, I am still waiting for an answer to my oft repeated question. You seem willing to cast aspersions on the Christianity of others, at least answer my question.

 

[rivers1222]

Originally posted by rivers1222:
StraightAndNarrow writes:

Do you think a decent country let alone one that calls itself a "Christian nation" tortures its prisioners?
--------------------------
I'm sorry group. I know I am gonna take some flak for this, however. If our intelligence community captures a terrorist who has knowledge of an emminent attack on our nation in which many innocent civilians will be killed, I would hope they would see it as their OBLIGATION to extract this info BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE.

------------------------
I repost this as an effort to clarify if my statement equals " the ends justifies the means"?
If it does then so be it. I wont retract it. Just looking for clarrification. And when the next terrorism strike occurs, and we werent ready because all our military guards and intel people were in sensitivity and diversity training, I can prety much pick out the people on this board who will be crying and whining the loudest saying this administration wasnt ready. And those same people will be correct, because this administration has buckled to you.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
Question for BiR: Where have I said, in reference to torture, that the ends justifies the means? No place, no time, no way. I did say, and still maintain, that if embarassment of a bunch of murdering terrorists saves the life of even one American, it is worth it. Embarrass away.

As to justifying torture, please provide the quote where I said it. Otherwise, retract your statement. Don't lay some left wing interpretation that twists the words out as proof.

Abject fatuity, nothing more.

Let's take this point by point:

Where have I said, in reference to torture, that the ends justifies the means?

When did I EVER say that you said this? HUH?
Let's go back to my post on October 9, 2005 @ 9:24 AM:

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
BJ, In effect as signatories of the Geneva Convention, we do have laws against torture. Furhtermore, since the prisoners currently in question are not soldiers, but terrorists, they are protected by law.

Are you suggesting that this somehow justifies the use of torture? I certainly hope not........

Regards,
BiR </font>[/QUOTE]I asked you a question, didn't I? I didn't say anything about what you said, I asked you a question. I didn't make this up: it's right there on page 3 of this thread. One more time: I asked you a question. Perhaps you should actually read what I write next time.

I did say, and still maintain, that if embarassment of a bunch of murdering terrorists saves the life of even one American, it is worth it. Embarrass away.

So, for a third time, you are saying that the ends justify the means.

Let's recap:
The statement that I reproduced on page 3:

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
Even so, if causing these prisoners some humiliation saved the life of even one American, it is worth it.

Your response to my comments:

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
And yes, I still believe if a little embarrassment saved one American life it was worth it.

And now, one more time:

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
I did say, and still maintain, that if embarassment of a bunch of murdering terrorists saves the life of even one American, it is worth it. Embarrass away.

Yeah, I get it, so you really don't need to write it again, although I feel you will.

As to justifying torture, please provide the quote where I said it. Otherwise, retract your statement.

Utter foolishness. Please show me where I accused you of "justifying torture." Again, I asked you a question. Show me anywhere I wrote this statement.

Don't lay some left wing interpretation that twists the words out as proof.

Wow: now that's original. I know what that means......

Perhaps you should take a deep breath, and think about what you are going to write before you hit the "add reply" button.

BiR

 

[SeekingTruth]

BiR regardless of how you twist the debate, your accusation is false. I do not condone torture. If it pleases you liberal little mind to jump an enormous chasm and come to the conclusion that I advocate the old Jesuit argument that the end justifies the means, there is not much one can say about it. You and I will never agree on this issue, so let's agree to disagree. While I anticipate more of your sarcasm, I will ignore it.

 

[poncho]

Poncho: Talking points . Get real. All I asked for is proof. You and your like-minded posters are the ones guilty of posting talking points. They are certainly not supported by any facts you have provided. If you have proof, provide it. If not you guys should not make such sweeping accusations. Provide the proof or quit posting unfounded rumors.

A Defense Department spokesman said last night that the March 2003 memo represented "a scholarly effort to define the perimeters of the law" but added: "What is legal and what is put into practice is a different story." Pentagon officials said the group examined at least 35 interrogation techniques, and Rumsfeld later approved using 24 of them in a classified directive on April 16, 2003, that governed all activities at Guantanamo Bay. The Pentagon has refused to make public the 24 interrogation procedures.

SOURCE

This is what the administration says...

Bush administration officials say flatly that, despite the discussion of legal issues in the two memos, it has abided by international conventions barring torture, and that detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere have been treated humanely, except in the cases of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq for which seven military police soldiers have been charged.

International law as in the Third Geneva Conventions says...

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Art 17. Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.

If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Now I suspect I'll hear about the "enemy combatant" status. What is that? A way for the authorities to get around both international laws and those of the United States and escape responsibilty for their intents and actions. This isn't only my opnion but that of many respected legal authorities.

All information such as the Abu Ghraib photos is controlled by and through the Pentagon. It would have never been revealed unless the Pentagon give the official okie dokie. Why would they give the official okie dokie and make this all public?

To inflame the enemy and incite further actions on his part. Which is exactly what it did.

For one thing there is something called plausible deniability that the high up muckity mucks always enjoy, (See "Iran Contra Scandal") and they knew they could get away with claiming it was all the fault of a few lower ranking individuals and that good ole Rush (the shill) Limbaugh could be counted on to convince all the non self thinking sheople that the few low ranking individuals were "just blowing off steam, as in a fraternity prank".

Now check out P2OG below.

In August 2002, the first public hints of a new U.S. secret counterintelligence group -- the Proactive Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG) -- emerged from a report of the Defense Science Board (DSB), a Pentagon advisory group, and found its way into daylight.

"The DSB briefing was first reported by Dan Dupont in Inside the Pentagon" on September 26, 2002. The briefing was also discussed by William M. Arkin in the Los Angeles Times on October 27, 2002.[1] 2]
On September 26, 2002, United Press International (UPI) announced that it had exclusively obtained documents summarizing the report of the Defense Science Board, which were to be publicly released in late October, after it has been presented to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. The report is entitled Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism. [3]

Proactive Preemptive Operations Group

This means that the United States government is planning to use secret military operations in order to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people. In a strange twist of logic, it seems the plan is to somehow combat terrorism by causing it. According to the report, other strategies include stealing money from terrorist cells or tricking them with fake communications. The Defense Department already maintains a secretive counter-terror operations group known as Delta Force that is called in when a crisis happens.

Exactly what type of actions would be required to "stimulate reactions" by terrorist groups has yet to be revealed. When asked questions regarding what measures would be taken, Pentagon sources responded with, "Their sovereignty will be at risk."

The current P2OG program is not entirely new to the United States. One similar program was Operation Northwoods. In 1963, America's top military brass presented a plan to President John Kennedy that called for a fake terrorist campaign — complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans — to provide "justification" for an invasion of Cuba, a Mafia/corporate fiefdom which had recently been lost to Castro. Kennedy rejected the plan, and was killed a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but on a far grander scale, with resources at his disposal undreamed of by his predecessors, and no counterbalancing global rival to restrain him.

Former president Nixon wanted such a group, but congress denied it; President Reagan tried to use the National Security Council instead, but ran into trouble with the Iran-Contra affair. Now, President Bush may finally realize the dream.

SOURCE

In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”

See Document At Source National Security Archives

 

[poncho]

Exactly what type of actions would be required to "stimulate reactions" by terrorist groups has yet to be revealed. When asked questions regarding what measures would be taken, Pentagon sources responded with, "Their sovereignty will be at risk."

Could it be that the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo dabacles were made public to "stimulate reactions"?

 

[Daisy]

Pattern of Abuse

A decorated Army officer reveals new allegations of detainee mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Did the military ignore his charges?

By ADAM ZAGORIN

The U.S. Army has launched a criminal investigation into new allegations of serious prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan made by a decorated former Captain in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, an Army spokesman has confirmed to TIME. The claims of the Captain, who has not been named, are in part corroborated by statements of two sergeants who served with him in the 82nd Airborne; the allegations form the basis of a report from Human Rights Watch obtained by TIME and due to be released in the next few days (Since this story first went online, the organization has decided to put out its report; it can be found here). Senate sources tell TIME that the Captain has also reported his charges to three senior Republican senators: Majority Leader Bill Frist, Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner and John McCain, a former torture victim in Vietnam. A Senate Republican staffer familiar with both the Captain and his allegations told TIME he appeared "extremely credible."

Source: Time.com (linkie)

Torture of Iraqis was for ‘stress relief’, say US soldiers


By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor


FOR the first time, American soldiers who personally tortured Iraqi prisoners have come forward to give testimony to human rights organisations about crimes they comm itted.
Three soldiers – a captain and two sergeants – from the 82nd Airborne Division stationed at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Mercury near Fallujah in Iraq have told Human Rights Watch how prisoners were tortured both as a form of stress relief and as a way of breaking them for interrogation sessions.

These latest revelations about the torture of Iraqi detainees come at a time when the Bush administration thought it could draw a line under the scandal of Abu Ghraib following last week’s imprisonment of Private Lynndie England for her now infamous role in the abuse of prisoners and the photographing of torture.

The 82nd Airborne soldiers at FOB Mercury earned the nickname “The Murderous Maniacs” from local Iraqis and took the moniker as a badge of honour.

The soldiers referred to their Iraqi captives as PUCs – persons under control – and used the expressions “f***ing a PUC” and “smoking a PUC” to refer respectively to torture and forced physical exertion.

One sergeant provided graphic descriptions to Human Rights Watch investigators about acts of abuse carried out both by himself and others. He now says he regrets his actions. His regiment arrived at FOB Mercury in August 2003. He said: “ The first interrogation that I observed was the first time I saw a PUC pushed to the brink of a stroke or a heart attack. At first I was surprised, like, ‘This is what we are allowed to do?’”

The troops would put sand-bags on prisoners’ heads and cuff them with plastic zip-ties. The sergeant, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said if he was told that prisoners had been found with homemade bombs, “we would f*** them up, put them in stress positions and put them in a tent and withhold water … It was like a game. You know, how far could you make this guy go before he passes out or just collapses on you?”

He explained: “To ‘f*** a PUC’ means to beat him up. We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs and stomach, pull them down, kick dirt on them. This happened every day. To ‘smoke’ someone is to put them in stress positions until they get muscle fatigue and pass out. That happened every day.

“Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. We did that for amusement.”

&lt;snip&gt;
Source: SundayHerald.com (linkie)

For the Human Rights Watch Report, click here (linkie) .

Is a question the same as an accusation? It can be, but it can also be an actual question.

 

[poncho]

Daisy,

Can a question be used to stimulate a deeper curiosity and a motivation to investigate other possibilities than what, on the surface at first seem likely and plausible?

Naw, probably not.

 

[carpro]

Funny how they "come forward" later, but don't bother to "come forward" while they are active duty while something could be done about it.

Appears some of them are self confessed criminals. Wonder what their penalty will be?

Is it at all possible they felt the noose tightening and now is the time to "come forward" so they can cop a plea?