is bush really authorized now to hold eople without a trial and torture them to the point of death?

Question

if so im all for impeachment
but seriously id like to know if what ive heard is true or not

Answer 1

Not necessarily.
No, he's not allowed to torture them to death, or authorize them to be tortured to death.
Yes, for terrorists or suspected terrorists, habeas corpus has been suspended in some cases.
This kind of thing has been done before. Do Japanese detainment camps ring a bell? Yeah, FDR did that. He was a great president. He did what he had to do, in order to protect Americans. Was it wrong? Perhaps, looking back, it was. But on the other hand, it was perfectly understandable. The fear was so palpable at that time it could be cut with a knife.
Now, on to President Bush. He IS advocating revising the Geneva Convention, so that it does not apply to terrorists. The reasoning behind this is simple:
1) Terrorists are not uniformed combatants.
2) They are not loyal to any one country.
It's a difficult choice, but one that HAS to be made. The world is changing. It now comes to the point that a choice has to made between the discomfort of a few, and the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people. Sorry, I think that the lives of many FAR outweigh the discomfort of a few.
We NEED to be tough on those people. If we're not...they'll walk all over us. And the 3000 people who died on 9/11 would tell you that it's not pretty when terrorists walk all over us.

Answer 2

No it's not true. The US can't torture people to death, yes it can torture people in some ways.

Your (and many other people's) main falacy is that you are implying that Bush is doing something different than other US presidents or other countries. Your question is similar to the following:

"Can Bush really order our troops to kill people without trial, evidence or a discovery process?"

Of course he can it's called war. On a battlefield if someone is firing a gun at you then you don't have to apply with a judge for the certificate to use deadly force in subdueing the other person. When you shoot the guy and then later your excellent medical team manages to keep him alive he is a P.O.W. prison of war.

You don't get a trial when you are a prisoner of war. You don't get rights, you're not innocent until proven guilty.... because again you were shooting at us trying to kill our troops, we clearly saw you doing that and um this is war. You get to be released when the war is over and you don't have an army to rejoin that is still fighing us.

Terrorist organizations make this a little more confusing because they are not a country. However why should we extend more rights to someone who fights for an organization that deliberately targets civilians than someone who fights for the conventional army of a country we are at war against? Many or most of the soldiers in a conventional army are there to feed their family or because they were forced to serve. (most) Conventional armies also don't target civilians.

So you should be proud to live in a country that actually debates in public what our military can and can't do. There is no other country in the world that is even close to this. In France you go to jail for revealing to the public that France tortures people.

Answer 3

Torture? It depends what your definition of torture is. Personally I consider Barbara Streisand's music to be brutal agony. The president and homeland security DOES have the power to detain suspects of terror groups, or unofficial militia (enemy combatants)
without trial. But not "torture" as we usually think of it. I doubt there's any midevil dungeon with a rack to rend limbs anywhere. Though in honesty, I'd have to admit that if a person had info that could save the lives of thousands of my people; and that person was refusing to give it up........I hate it, but I'd be a liar if I said I would'nt be for it. Otherwise, not getting such info could result in a tragedy I could have avoided. In an indirect way, I'd be responsible. --- LOL that's not to say I trust Bush any further than I could throw an elephant. Whether his administration gets the results they're ostensibly for, it seems always to result in price hikes for fuel (or $ for he and his) and more power transferred into fewer hands.

Answer 4

Now I'm not advocating it, but the 'torture' of terrorists hardly moves me. I sympathize with the soldiers in Iraq as well as civilians. I have more sympathy for the animals killed for my dinner, and I won't even eat meat or poultry because of it, only fish. Terrorists can stay in prison.

It's like the incredibly biased news coverage of the CBC in Canada. They feel so sorry for the terrorists arrested on violations of national security after a bomb threat was made against Toronto. They don't understand liquids banned on airplanes. They don't understand why we need to screen refugees after September 11. They don't see why our government should take responsibility for its actions. We allowed those people to go through our country. Have victims of September 11 seen one penny from our government, let alone an apology or change in policy? Nope.

Answer 5

did you see President George Bush actually carry out the act of torturing someone to death? (other than by listening to his speeches)

The one who actually carries out the act of torturing is the guilty one. President Bush hasn't much control over anything. That's like saying God should be put to trial for something I did because...well..he made me right? NOT!

Answer 6

Late last year, Congress approved legislation declaring that U.S. interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

But President Bush's signing statement said the president, as commander in chief, can "waive the torture ban" if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Answer 7

first off 99% of the torture accustions are FALSE!!!!!!!!! and second unless you would like to have some dumbass extremist telling you how you will live in all aspects I would suggest you try doing a little research on the just what exactly the WORLD is dealing with these people are not your best friend they would force their beliefs on you as well as what you will do for them..... sound familiar yet.... Hitler, ring any bells, how about Stalin same agenda differnt people.

Answer 8

Heck many governments/countries/political leaders have been doing this for years - what's the big deal? Good ol George is an amateur compared to some them... and they stil in power!! Go Bush!!!

Answer 9

Depends on who you ask. Anyway, it's not a question of whether BUSH is authorized, it is a question of whether the OFFICE is authorized. If the office is authorized, then the president is. However, I do not accept that the office is authorized.

Hey AKA GUARD, have you ever heard that poem along the lines of "First they came for my neighbor..." Google it... try the line " it wasn't me, so I did nothing."

Answer 10

Well, legally no, but if his puppeteers say so, then as long as the captive audience do nothing, then yes, by silent assent.
Amazing how questions like this bring out the midless fascists.