Bush: 'This government does not torture'

[The.Menace]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Friday defended his administration's methods of interrogating terrorism suspects, insisting, "This government does not torture people."

"When we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we're going to detain them and you bet we're going to question them, because the American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence, so we can help them -- help protect them," Bush said.

Bush said his administration sticks to "U.S. law and our international obligations."

He said, "The techniques that we use have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress."

Bush's remarks followed a report Thursday in The New York Times that said a secret Justice Department memo in 2005 amounted to "an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency."

The 2005 legal opinion was issued after then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took over Justice, the Times reported, and authorized using a combination of techniques such as head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding.

the whole story u can find here
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/05/bush.torture/index.html

----

So there is the my question. How can u authorized techniques such as head slaps, freezing and simulated drownings and claim NOT TO torture someone? How can u claim to stick 2 US law? How can you claim 2 stick 2 human rights or 'international obligations'?
How stupid is this man? Or how stupid does he think WE ARE? :fury:

 

[PuffnScruff]

hey, it could be worse, at least they aren't binding people up and cutting their heads off in front of a video camera and sending the tape out to the evening news

 

[The.Menace]

And that is an excuse or what? Like if I rape a girl, I can say, hey it could be worse, I only raped her, I didn't kill her.... is it ok cause it could be worse?

Plus, Puff, u miss the lie in that statment. U seem 2 agree that it is torture...right?

Jesus. I dunno what to say about that comment Puff, really.

 

[Sebastian]

Puffy was only semi-serious i think.

Anyway, those who read books and basically know whats going on know that Bush is blatantly lying. Thats nothing new though.

 

[The.Menace]

Puffy was only semi-serious i think.

I hope so, I really do.

And well, Seb - that's not the point, that some know that they are lyin. I mean, it's like official what they did/do to prisoners, they even admit it - but how can you say u don't torture in the same statment, that's an insult to people's intelligence I think.

 

[Sebastian]

When you say official it sounds like everyone should know whats going on. But there is a great number of people out there who have no clue about Guantanamo and co, no clue at all. Those people are an insult to human intelligence, too

 

[The.Menace]

Those people are an insult to human intelligence, too

I agree.

 

[Preach]

Two sides:

Torture is fucking inhumane. Anyone who okay's torture should be tortured themselves to give out information they do not want to share with anyone, and then see if they would still endorse torture.

On the other side, a terrorist is inhumane in his own right, and some times you HAVE to apply torture to get the information you need to protect the innocence and safety of the larger scale population.

Both is equally true and equally right in their own rights. I don't know what to think. I don't ever wanna be tortured, but I'm not ever gonna be a part of a conspirator group. Then there's the possibility that the person being tortured actually does not know anything more than what he has already shared during interrogation prior to the torture.

Those methods mentioned in the original post can be described, I guess, as more humane methods of torture, which again makes them more acceptable.

To conclude, I think I need to think more about this because I don't really have an opinion. I don't want to be tortured, but my concrete opinions on the matter stop there.

 

[Preach]

I'll add that any kind of torture that involves puncturing of your body in whatever form is something I could never feel okay about... UNLESS the offended is a mass serial rapist and killer of young girls. I would personally torture a guy like that free of charge, no problem.

 

[PuffnScruff]

And that is an excuse or what? Like if I rape a girl, I can say, hey it could be worse, I only raped her, I didn't kill her.... is it ok cause it could be worse?

Plus, Puff, u miss the lie in that statment. U seem 2 agree that it is torture...right?

Jesus. I dunno what to say about that comment Puff, really.

man, if you can read my mind off of a smart ass comment then we need to start a 1-900 number and make more money than ms. cleo

Puffy was only semi-serious i think.

Anyway, those who read books and basically know whats going on know that Bush is blatantly lying. Thats nothing new though.

lol well i think i can say someone might have seen it my smartass joke for what it was

but i have to wonder what does reading books have to do with this? i am reading a book right now that examines many of the "leaks" that have happend during this adminstration and the author makes a great case that they have all come from the cia and that there certain people in the cia have been working against the current adminstration for many reason, some political and some to cover their own ass. after reading about this latest "leak" in the news i quickly noticed many things that were the same in previous leaks that are mentioned in the book i am reading and thought this probably was "leaked" by the cia.

 

[The.Menace]

Sorry puff, haven't had a proper sleep for quit a while

Preach, I dunno what u have to think about it, u said it yourself.

Torture is fucking inhumane

so. that's about it. Even though the other person MIGHT act inhuman (be a terrorist) you shouldn't act the same way, that doesn't justify inhuman actions. What kind of logic would that be?

Plus, there is no reason to discuss the kind of torture, sorry man, man that is inacceptable. Why should be beatin someone be not ok but almost drown someone be okey? .... who are u to judge what kinda of pain is okey to be put uppon someone else?

One point that many are missing, torture doesn't lead to TRUSTWORTHY information. Just go back in history. Someone that does't know too much and is tortured gonna admit 2 everything sooner or later - but that doesn't help your cause!

Puff, well I don't care who leaked it - it's about what happens!

 

[Sebastian]

Puff, i dont understand what you want to say with your post about the leaks.

 

[Jokerman]

Bush wasn’t lying when he said we don’t use torture. To him we simply use "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment." We call them "enhanced interrogation techniques," "professional interrogation," and "moderate physical pressure." So, if you don’t call it by it’s name, you’re not condoning it.

According to the Pentagon's own findings, torture, murder, rape, and "systematic," "sadistic, wanton, and blatant abuse" has been perpetrated against U.S. detainees in Iraq.

Torture violates the dignity of the human being, it dehumanizes the torturer, and it erodes the character of the nation that uses it.

The United States has compromised itself on the very issues of respect for natural rights and for the rule of law that so long distinguished the Republic from the oppressive regimes that have often ruled the rest of the world.

 

[Preach]

Sorry puff, haven't had a proper sleep for quit a while

Preach, I dunno what u have to think about it, u said it yourself.

so. that's about it. Even though the other person MIGHT act inhuman (be a terrorist) you shouldn't act the same way, that doesn't justify inhuman actions. What kind of logic would that be?

Plus, there is no reason to discuss the kind of torture, sorry man, man that is inacceptable. Why should be beatin someone be not ok but almost drown someone be okey? .... who are u to judge what kinda of pain is okey to be put uppon someone else?

One point that many are missing, torture doesn't lead to TRUSTWORTHY information. Just go back in history. Someone that does't know too much and is tortured gonna admit 2 everything sooner or later - but that doesn't help your cause!

Puff, well I don't care who leaked it - it's about what happens!

Yeah, and that's the thing. If I catch a dude with "Al Quaida Senior Officer" tattooed in his forehead I wouldn't hesitate. I get where you are going, and principally, I agree, I just don't think everything is black and white, and the reason why I think there's a gray zone to torture is that let's say that the tortured had been a torturer him/herself and fucked up a bunch of little schoolgirls, cut off limbs and what not? I wouldn't torture him myself, and if I saw a report about it on the news I'd raise an eyebrow, but in the end I'd feel contempt that he got to taste his own medicine and is now no longer a threat. Then again, I see all the shit that that would spawn. If the government can torture, why can't everybody else. The line between moral and amoral would become blurred. Or possibly not. How are we to guess anyway?

Also, like I mentioned above, let's say you are 99% sure that the person being tortured is withholding vital information that could save several lives, maybe tens or even hundreds, or shit, thousands. Again, I wouldn't torture a guy myself but if someone has the gut to and it could save tons of people.... I dunno, this is why I said I have to think about it. There's a lot of shit leaning for and against. I never pondered on this shit, torture and such. When you say "what's there to think about" it's obvious you have thought this through. While you may or may not be more of a typical humanitarian, I'm more the type of guy that thinks that the means are justified by the goal.

But to make it abundantly clear, I do not condone torture. In any real life situation, if I had to either say "yes" or "no" to torture I wouldn't hesitate to say "no", it's just that there are some certain extreme cases where I could let it slide so to speak... Or maybe not.. Like I said, I need to think for a period.

 

[The.Menace]

The United States has compromised itself on the very issues of respect for natural rights and for the rule of law that so long distinguished the Republic from the oppressive regimes that have often ruled the rest of the world.

exactly. Saddam, for example, was bad. No doubt about it. But to use the same methods, torture and such, just puts u on the same level than he was. Torture isn't suddenly a good thing just cause someone is doin it with the US flag wrapped around his chest. Do you understand that preach?

And if you do, how can u even think about torture again? You say what if that could save lives - well, what if not? This is like they said back in the days, let Got judge them. Kill them, if a person is guilty it's the right thing to do and if he's not, God's gonna forgive him and he's going to heaven, so basically it's perfect to kill a possible witch.

Like I said before, the point that many are missing is that torture is not leading to trustworth, valid informations. Let's say preach they think u know where Bin Laden is and put u through a lot of pain - there's gonna be a point where u no longer will tell the truth (that u have no idea) but u'll say something like - the last time I saw him was in a cave somewhere need the pakistani border. Those 'informations' don't help the case. If you torture 100 peole and one might tell the truth, this good informations gets totally lost in the fantasy of 99 people that just make something up so the torture stops..... so even if you don't see how inhuman it is to torture, there is no sense to it.

I dunno how people that act that way can call themself religious. I'd love to read Mr Bush a couple of phrases from the book called the bible...well then again, that wouldn't help anyway - but it's an insult to religion if people like him claim to act in a christian way. You far far away form that, Mr Donkey head.

I'm more the type of guy that thinks that the means are justified by the goal.

Well, let's nuke Iraq. Or better, all muslim countries. There are a couple of terrorists down there, u know.

 

[Preach]

exactly. Saddam, for example, was bad. No doubt about it. But to use the same methods, torture and such, just puts u on the same level than he was. Torture isn't suddenly a good thing just cause someone is doin it with the US flag wrapped around his chest. Do you understand that preach?

And if you do, how can u even think about torture again? You say what if that could save lives - well, what if not? This is like they said back in the days, let Got judge them. Kill them, if a person is guilty it's the right thing to do and if he's not, God's gonna forgive him and he's going to heaven, so basically it's perfect to kill a possible witch.

Like I said before, the point that many are missing is that torture is not leading to trustworth, valid informations. Let's say preach they think u know where Bin Laden is and put u through a lot of pain - there's gonna be a point where u no longer will tell the truth (that u have no idea) but u'll say something like - the last time I saw him was in a cave somewhere need the pakistani border. Those 'informations' don't help the case. If you torture 100 peole and one might tell the truth, this good informations gets totally lost in the fantasy of 99 people that just make something up so the torture stops..... so even if you don't see how inhuman it is to torture, there is no sense to it.

I dunno how people that act that way can call themself religious. I'd love to read Mr Bush a couple of phrases from the book called the bible...well then again, that wouldn't help anyway - but it's an insult to religion if people like him claim to act in a christian way. You far far away form that, Mr Donkey head.

Well, let's nuke Iraq. Or better, all muslim countries. There are a couple of terrorists down there, u know.

I'm not reading all that... I think you misunderstood me.

Listen, it's not like I'll ever condone torture. It's not like I'll ever say "yes, torture is okay". If I learned that torture had been practiced, and learned the circumstances around said occurring of torture, and the torment served a greater cause that was reached, I'd be willing to let it "slide". That doesn't mean let the torturer go free, just any kind of alternative solution that doesn't leave him rotting in a jail cell for the rest of his life, unless he felt satisfaction in what he did.

Listen man, you see where I'm going with this. There's a million reasons why I would be able to let shit slide, but ultimately, I'm against it. This is all speculative thinking. No matter what I say here, people are gonna be tortured out there and the laws will say torture is illegal. I won't ever torture anybody. I like to think that whatever you don't want others to do to you, you shouldn't do to them. In a very literal way. On the other hand, I'm not gonna sit here and say that every person who ever tortured someone deserves to have justice done upon them. I don't think all torments were in vain, so I won't say that either.

You see the gray zone? I'm not saying torture is right, I'm saying it's wrong, but within that context I'm speculating. In any case I would use my best judgment. If you think my speculative thoughts on a matter that is purely hypothetical are in unison with my moral compass, you are wrong.

So you don't have to ask me "Do you understand that, Preach?" in such a demeaning manner. I'm only making arguments for argument's sake. I could say "yeah fuck torture" and the thread would be dead probably.

 

[S O F I]

Sometimes, I think you live in a bubble, tommy.

 

[Preach]

By the way, I did read it by now

 

[The.Menace]

No matter what I say here, people are gonna be tortured out there and the laws will say torture is illegal.

The 2005 legal opinion was issued after then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took over Justice, the Times reported, and authorized using a combination of techniques such as head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding.

Do you get the point?

I like to think that whatever you don't want others to do to you, you shouldn't do to them. In a very literal way.

This is more a religious thing, but why in a very literal way? Why don't u live it?

Sometimes, I think you live in a bubble, tommy.

and I often think you shouldn't be allowed to post in WOW.

 

[Preach]

Do you get the point?

Yes. It has happened for a long time and would continue to be practiced regardless of whether it was brought to the public eye. If it had gone unnoticed there wouldn't be a difference and we wouldn't be having this discussion, and MY point is that I'll never condone torture. I am, however, open to speculate on whether or not it was called for in an individual case. I don't know the story around how, when and on who those methods of torture were practiced. My final response is "No, I do not support torture, but within that context I am open for speculation." Maybe if I'm tortured myself I'll change my opinion, but that's what I'm thinking right now.

This is more a religious thing, but why in a very literal way? Why don't u live it?

Well that's actually what i meant by literally, i live it, i can actually formulate that sentence in my own head before doing something which would stop me from doing it if i realized what i was doing was fucked up. Which is why i said i would never torture anybody myself.