BUSH: "We do not torture."

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ezekiel

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
677
Location
Kansas City, MO
I'll let others debate the verocity of the source and all that stuff: I'm just appalled that such a thing even had to be said. There was a day, in general, the United States of America was above global suspicion of such things. (The perception being, in many cases, as good as fact.)

Reminds me somewhat of "I am not a crook," merely in the theory that -- if there is complete innocence -- there is no need to make such a blanket denial. I'm open-minded and "we'll see."

Thanks,

Zeke

Please see:

"
By Tabassum Zakaria
9 minutes ago




The United States will do what it takes to protect itself but "we do not torture," President Bush said on Monday in response to criticism of reported secret CIA prisons and the handling of terrorism suspects.

Bush defended his administration's efforts to stop the U.S. Congress from imposing rules on the handling of terrorism suspects.

He did not confirm or deny the existence of CIA secret prisons that The Washington Post disclosed last week and would not address demands by the International Committee of the Red Cross to have access to the suspects reportedly held at them.

"We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice," Bush said at a news conference with Panamanian President Martin Torrijos. "We are gathering information about where the terrorists might be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do ... to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law."

Vice President Dick Cheney has been spearheading an effort on Capitol Hill to have the CIA exempt from an amendment by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) that would ban torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

The exemption would cover the secret prisons that The Post said were located in several eastern European democracies and other countries where key al Qaeda captives are being kept.

"We do not torture and therefore we're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it more possible to do our job," Bush said.

He said he was confident that when "people see the facts, that they'll recognize that we've got more work to do and that we've got to protect ourselves in a way that is lawful."

'TERRIBLE MISTAKE'

Bush spoke a day after Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) told ABC's "This Week" that the Bush administration was making a "terrible mistake" in opposing the McCain amendment.

"Why in the world they're doing that, I don't know. You've got 90 senators out of 100 and that includes many Republicans opposed to it," Hagel said.

Hagel cited the Bush position as an example of the need for the president to widen his net of advisers as a way to regain his credibility with the American people amid sagging poll numbers over the Iraq war, soaring gasoline prices and other troubles.

The Senate voted 90-9 for the McCain amendment to prohibit the use of torture and abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody, adding it to a $440 billion defense spending bill despite a White House veto threat.

The House of Representatives did not include the detainee rules in its version of the bill, and House and Senate negotiators are working out differences for a final bill.

The White House position is that international treaty obligations already on the books governs the treatment of suspects and that the United States is observing those rules.

"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so you bet we'll aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law," Bush said.

(Additional reporting by Vicki Allen in Washington)

Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon."
 
Since we're not torturing prisoners, there's no reason to oppose a law against doing such a thing ... is there?

:scrutiny:

pax
 
The United States will do what it takes to protect itself but "we do not torture"...
Yeah right :barf: and the sun'll burn out sometime in the next 12 or so hours too.

The United States Government does what ever is necessary to achieve the goals of those who are in charge - whether it is legal or not. And when it comes to dealing with enemies of the state (foreign or domestic) that's pretty much how it always has been, is and always will be.

The United States Government is far from being unique in that respect. It, like governments through out history is self perpetuating and will react as it deems necessary to protect itself; legally if possible; illegally if necessary.

The only distinction between a benevolent government and one not so benevolent is the level at which a perceived threat or a necessary goal trips the illegal wire. One would like to believe that the trip point for the USA is somewhat higher than that of other governments.

Not surprising at all; it's just the way things are.
 
Last edited:
Bush is playing word games. The amendment prohibits prisoners being tortured (passive verb) in US custody. Bush says "we do not torture" (active verb). We don't torture, we just ask the questions while someone else pulls their fingernails out. Very classy, Bush.
 
Well, I'm glad he cleared this up...and people wonder why his intergrity is being questioned.
 
Bush says "we do not torture" (active verb). We don't torture, we just ask the questions while someone else pulls their fingernails out.
That's news to me. Is there any evidence whatsoever that the U.S. 'tortures' prisoners?
 
Maher's Story in Brief

Maher Arar is a 34-year-old wireless technology consultant. Arar was born in Syria and at the age of 17, came to Canada with his family. He became a Canadian citizen in 1991 and in 1997 moved to Ottawa.

In September 2002, Arar was in Tunisia, vacationing with his wife Monia Mazigh and their two small children. On Sept. 26 while in transit in New York’s JFK airport, he was detained by US officials and interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later, he was chained, shackled and flown to Jordan aboard a private plane and from there transferred to a Syrian prison.

In Syria, he was held in a tiny “grave-like” cell for ten months and ten days before he was moved to a better cell in a different prison. He was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession.

During his imprisonment, Monia campaigned relentlessly on his behalf. After many representations from Canadian Human Rights organizations and a growing number of citizens, the Government of Canada, on Jan. 28, 2004, announced a Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar.
http://www.maherarar.ca/
 
Is that all ya got?

How does the deportation of a foreign national back to his own country equate to U.S. torture of prisoners???? :confused:
 
RHL:

Give them a break. It takes time to marshall up supporting evidence to support unfounded preconceived notions.
 
See, the real problem is that everyone has a different definition of torture.

Me? When they start losing limbs, or the permenant ability to use whatever body part, that is torture. To someone else? It may be heating the room at 65F instead of 72F. To yet another person, psychological mind games may be the only real torture, and to someone else, it may only be torture ifd the person ends up dead.
 
I think the question more should be should or shouldn't we torture and if so when torture would be nessisary.

Also remember torture is a pretty broad term. To some people interigating for a few hours strait or blairing loud music they hate is torture and to others the notion that those are torture is laughable.
 
It probably gives some people the warm and fuzzies to think that we don't torture prisoners and that makes us better then others.

I've got some great land in Florida for sale that's not a swamp to anyone who actually believes that. Oh, I also own a bridge too.
 
The United States Government does what ever is necessary to achieve the goals of those who are in charge - whether it is legal or not. And when it comes to dealing with enemies of the state (foreign or domestic) that's pretty much how it always has been, is and always will be.

The United States Government is far from being unique in that respect. It like governments through out history is self perpetuating and will react as it deems necessary to protect itself; legally if possible; illegally if necessary.

Yup.
 
Quick search, but if you spent enough time looking you'd find thousands of examples of agents of the United States...be they soldiers, special agents, or govt officials...engaged in methods most would call torture. Gonzales was the one who rewrote the definition of what constitues torture.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/10/usdom9659.htm


My only concern doesn't have anything to do with US enemies being tortured. My concern is the next big war that the US fights. Are we going to find our prisoners being tortured because the US violated the Geneva convention and chose to ignore it's provisions? The next big war we find ourselves in could be very difficult for POWs. Even more so than they could normally expect.
 
Quote "The next big war we find ourselves in could be very difficult for POWs. Even more so than they could normally expect."

You mean even more then how the Japanese in WWII, North Vietnamese and Muslim Terrorists have treated our citizens and soldiers?

I think there are very few countries now a days following the Geneva Convention.
 
My only concern doesn't have anything to do with US enemies being tortured. My concern is the next big war that the US fights. Are we going to find our prisoners being tortured because the US violated the Geneva convention and chose to ignore it's provisions? The next big war we find ourselves in could be very difficult for POWs. Even more so than they could normally expect.
So what else is new. Think Japan and its treatment of POW's in WWII. Think Vietnam and how our POW's were treated there.

The standards for treatment of POW's varies by culture. The geneva accords will be applied only in so far as the applying culture wishes.

If the next big war involves Western Culture vs Islamic Culture it really doesn't matter what we do - western POW's will not be treated with the same level of civility as will Islamic POW's. Our guys will be in for a brutal stay at the Haslamabad Hilton...
 
Human Rights Watch. Now there's a credible source. :rolleyes:

Can you provide anything a little more objective? You know, something not filled with unfounded allegations and the wishful thinking of hardcore America hating communists?

So far, I've seen no evidence of American torture of prisoners.
 
RHLee wrote:
That's news to me. Is there any evidence whatsoever that the U.S. 'tortures' prisoners?

"Torture" was the word used by FBI agents in memos back to headquarters regarding US military treatment of detainees at Gitmo.

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/fbi.html

If I strap you to a chair and then beat you up, stick lit cigarettes in your ears or a light stick up your ass, would that help you understand the meaning of the word "torture"? How about if I chain you naked to bars in your cell and unleash a German Shepherd to bite you? How about if I hook you up to electrical current and "make you dance"? How about I strap you to a board and submerge you until you believe that you will drown? How about the mock execution?

Our government does all these things in our name. This is nobody's propaganda; it is absolutely documented.

Further reading: Torture and Truth by Mark Danner.
 
I say again: if our government isn't doing these things, why would the current administration campaign against a law which prohibits the government from doing them??

pax
 
The ACLU is a better source???? :p
Our government does all these things in our name. This is nobody's propaganda; it is absolutely documented.
It is? Why were some low level enlistees charged and convicted if it were government policy? Your statement is just hyperbole and wishful thinking, not documented fact.
 
if our government isn't doing these things, why would the current administration campaign against a law which prohibits the government from doing them??
Probably because passage of such a law would be tantamount to an admission of guilt in the minds of the hate America first crowd.

Again: Is there any evidence?
 
Lee ~

So Bush is threatening the first veto of his entire time in office, simply so the ACLU & its ilk won't think so badly of him? And he's campaigning for the American gov't to be allowed to torture prisoners -- simply so no one will think the gov't has been torturing its prisoners?

Interesting perspective.

pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top