English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Lawyers for the president have prepared documents that have excluded such activities as waterboarding and sleep deprivation from the list of approved tortures. In fact, they are described as not being tortures at all! But before the advent of Bush, these were all forbidden in the treatment of prisoners. During World War !!, prisoners and guards were friendly, playing cards together and garnering information through casual conversations. Eavesdropping was also used, as they allowed prisoners to visit each other. It was believed then, and is believed now by many experts, that information gained from torture is often false.

Do you believe the President's words were truthful, or is he again using political jargon to confuse the issue? And do you believe that more humane treatment results in more information in the long run?

2007-10-07 13:44:27 · 12 answers · asked by Me, Too 6 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

12 answers

It's likely dishonest in a couple ways.

First because Bush has his very own definition of torture. Change the definition enough and you can do absolutely anything and still claim its not torture.

Second because it does not exclude the possibility that the government is having torture done on its behalf, via rendition for example, or by independent contractors.

Of course there's no way to know what Bush is really up to.

It's no secret though that many of his followers cry for permission to torture without fear of being prosecuted themselves for it. Openly, loudly and frequently.

I would be very surprised if it turned out there was no torture going on under this administration, either by torturing the definition itself, or by contracting the work out to others, or simply by keeping it all secret, for "national security" reasons.

I think that there are very rare instances in which torture might be useful, but that as policy however, it is generally counterproductive, and a great abuse of power.

I therefore think that proponents of torture should simply be willing to suffer prosecution, imprisonment and/or execution, if they think some specific act of torture they'd like to commit is really so necessary to the lives of others.

They style themselves heroes. Let them prove it.

I think to demand permission in advance to render such grievous injury on one's own authority, without fear of prosecution, is about the lowest form of cowardice imaginable.

2007-10-07 14:17:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Well - now

You have seen outright denial you have seen a moral slide or comparitive ethic's and you have seen a shift in the definition of the words -

That is not torture this is so no we are not doing that

Of course not we would never do such a thing -

Ok we did but we are no where near as bad as those Europeans or Africans or whoever

That is a lot of weedling out of a straight forward answer isn't it ? That is a lot of justified and qualified reponses isn't it ?


Compare the answers you are getting to things you know are the truth -

Did you take the last cookie ? Yes or no - You know what the answer is and so if you are telling me the truth how do you behave - ?

I didn't know it was the last cookie - there were two at the time when I took it -----

That is not a cookie - no I took the last Muffin

Of course I took the last cookie my brother would have eaten the whole bag so what are you complaining about ?


When there is a concerted effort to make things complex and to use lingo that is meant to hide and confuse the meaning so that the listener is unaware of the definition -

It is a lie - It is meant to decieve and we have gotten so used to that we accept it now with the simple explanation of

"Politicians"

As if this is somehow a justification - the natural and unavoidable behaviour of the beast -

Lions eat things thats just what they do dogs mark terrirtory with urine and politicans lie to us - thats just the way it is

Although I am all for the unchangeable nature of dogs and lions - I do not think we should accept that politcans should get away with lies simply because the are politicans ,but how many of us have just accepted this as the way it is ?


There have been de-classified documents "The family Jewels" of the CIA showing an agency obbssessed with mind control - They said ater the release of these documents - It is was a very different agency at the time -

Wow and we all just accepted that ?

Lindsay English - caught in pictures tortureing people in prisons - She acted all by herself -

Have you ever been part of military culture - It is impossible to act all by yourself - Yet we believed that as well

The US government admitted to rendition - after they got caught - They kidknapped a few people and dropped them off in some nation that would torture them

But these were extreme cases and so on and so on and it had to be done ---- and we stopped asking a lot of questions shortly thereafter

Then "water boarding " it is clearly not torture to simulate drowning - so it does not meet the offical definition as the likely hood is that no permanet damage will be done to the person - This was the repulsive model of Russia that America squirmed at - How horrible and inhumane

But now it is not torture so it is ok - When did things change I wonder ????

So is the US government tortureing people -

No of course not - if you go along with the offical definition and realize that it is still better than some other nations do because that makes what "we" do ok

As long as you accept that some people are such a threat that it is a necesity and therefore doesn't count

No the US would never ever engadge in any such behaviour and how dare you suggest they were -

2007-10-08 11:07:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

He was lying, as usual. They torture prisoners ( remember Abu Ghraib?). Sometimes they hand prisoners over to other countries for the really nasty stuff or they use private contractors like those Blackwater freaks.

When you consider all of the abuses of power, how can anyone not view Bush as a dictator in president's clothing. I'm beginning to think that congress won't act because they are afraid that they might get an anthrax letter in the mail if they try to impeach these neocrazies.

“Press accounts indicate these legal memos are part of a concerted effort to immunize US officials from prosecution for abusive conduct,” said Joanne Mariner, Human Rights Watch’s Terrorism and Counterterrorism Director. “Taken together, they’re a paper trail leading to torture.”

The new opinions were reportedly drafted by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the office charged with providing authoritative legal guidance to other executive branch officials. They were reportedly approved by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

2007-10-08 02:31:35 · answer #3 · answered by Guardian 3 · 0 1

He was as honest as Bill Clinton was when Bill said "I did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky."

Somehow, THAT lie was important enough to impeach for, but Bush's lies are not.

Can someone 'splain this to me? Land's sakes and gosh darn it, I just don't understand how a little oral diversion that doesn't kill anyone is worth all that jazz with Ken Star and grand juries, but this does not even make the House convene a select committee to see if there are not grounds to impeach.

Hey, a breakthrough in American Politics: get the most evil Sith Lord you can find to be veep and nobody will think of impeachment.

2007-10-07 21:18:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Oh puleeze. No one believes him any more. Do you? The whole world had seen the torture evidence (abu ghraib photos) with their own eyes. That's like still asking if anyone believes that bush legitimately won the election in 2000 after the Florida vote recount went for Gore.

2007-10-07 20:48:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

In general, the U.S. doesn't "torture" prisoners, at least not like Europe, the Middle East, or Africa have.

Sure, we might have bright lights, sleep deprivation, and a few well-placed slaps to the face, but nothing like popping out eyeballs with a spoon, cutting off heads, or locking someone in a small dark cell with 10,000 hungry bed lice.

2007-10-07 20:49:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

suppose your whole family was in a town where the islamo nuts had a suitcase nuke planted at the local mall, it will kill all within a 25 mile radius.YOU AND YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY and friends.so, lets review your question and your thoughts of what our gov. SHOULD DO to get the information and prevent this disaster? perhaps it is time to let reality hit you in your face and hope you grow up.humane treatment-sure as humane as they are to us.how about torture, suicide bombs,beheadings,hanging our people from bridges.you twits have no clue what war and life is all about....it really is simple,kill them before they kill you!

2007-10-07 20:58:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Two words. Abu Ghraib.

2007-10-09 13:57:17 · answer #8 · answered by Kooties 5 · 0 0

If you believe what the U.S. is doing is torture then I guess it would be a lie. But what Al-Quida does, what would you call that. The U.S. doesn't behead people or shoot them in the back of the head or mutilate anyone so I don't think we as the U.S.
torture anyone to the extent that we kill them, while they are in our custody.

2007-10-07 20:56:51 · answer #9 · answered by jakespeed 2 · 1 2

Have you ever known ANY politician to be completely honest ?

2007-10-08 00:30:49 · answer #10 · answered by sirbobby98121 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers