Quote:
Did you read how they tested them? They did a psychological examination, and an interview. That's what they based most of their findings on.
And. Since a majority of them were from Abu-Ghraib......we know what happened at Abu-Ghraib.
|
I'd really like to know how the examiners discovered clear signs of electricity being used, scars, sexual abuse and sodomy, by simply giving them a psyc exam and an imterview.
Torture, Cover-Up At Gitmo? , Former Translator Says Prisoner Interrogations Were Staged For VIPs - CBS News
Report: Exams prove abuse, torture in Iraq, Gitmo - Yahoo! News
The Raw Story | Amnesty International releases accounts of Gitmo abuse, torture
Lawyer: U.S. Destroyed Gitmo Torture Notes, Charges Arise In Case Against Canadian Man Detained When He Was 15 - CBS News
So are you denying that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay were/are tortured?
Quote:
|
At Abu-Ghraib we know what happened, but overall no. I wouldn't acknowledge that at.
|
Refer to the previous quote, we know it happened/happens at Gitmo, now will you acknowlege it?
Quote:
|
I never said torture was legal.
|
Right, you just said that torture is illegal, and that the US did it in Abu-Ghraib, but that they didn't commit any crimes? And that they don't do it at Guantanamo Bay? State what you mean about how the evidence has surfaced about Americans torturing prisoners held abroad in prisons, and how that is not illegal, please?
Quote:
Your pattern is to state what you believe, and then pass it off as fact.
No. I will not acknowledge that the order came from the White House, because I don't even know if there was an order, and I don't even know if torture takes place.
|
It's not what I believe then pass it off as fact, there is CLEAR evidence of torture going on at these prisons, not only at Gitmo or Abu-Ghraib, but other prisons as well, these cases just aren't as documented as the other two. What more would it take for you to accept that the United States tortures prisoners? Canada has put the United States on the list of countries that torture people...
BBC NEWS | Americas | Canada puts US on 'torture list'
CTV.ca | Canada puts U.S. on torture watch list: CTV
Canada Puts US On Torture Watch List - Politics on The Huffington Post
U.S.: Did President Bush Order Torture? (Human Rights Watch, 21-12-2004)
President Authorized Abu Ghraib Torture, FBI Email Says - The NewStandard
Quote:
You calling them illegal, doesn't make them illegal.
The term you are looking for is "warrant-less" wire taps. Because they didn't go to a FISA court, but to my knowledge it is legal for the AG to bypass the FISA court.
|
RW, if warrantless wiretaps were legal, why would you need a warrant for a wiretap in the first place?
BBC NEWS | Americas | US judge rules wiretaps illegal
"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our constitution,"
Bush's illegal spying - Salon.com
"With the revelation of domestic spying by the National Security Agency, the message transmitted by the Bush White House is crystal clear: When the president decides existing law is insufficient to protect Americans, he'll move ahead on his own and do whatever he deems necessary in the war on terror."
Sen. Russell Feingold: Bush's Warrantless Wiretapping Program is Illegal
"This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law. Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program."
Impeach Bush, Illegal Wiretaps in violation of FISA law
Quote:
Harvard Political Review - Bush's Wiretapping: Legal and Necessary
I had the actual law up, when I made the comment. But, I couldn't find the link again. I'll try and find the specific law, that one person based their argument on.
|
"It authorizes the president “ to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons
he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 , or harbored such organizations or persons.” "
Do you feel comfortable with that? What if by some act of God, the president determined YOU aided in the terrorist attacks somehow? What would you tell them when they put you in handcuffs and took you away without so much as a phone call?
This is the problem, they have set everything up in a way where it is all legal, yes, but just because it's legal, doesn't make it right, can you grasp that concept? They mumble all the words together and make it unclear who can and cannot be considered a terrorist. There are laws out there that are in place to protect people from crimes they commit, this is CLEARLY one of those laws. You can say it's legal all you want, you can show me the law that says the president has the authority to steal all my shit and lock me up and throw away the key if he thinks I'm a terrorist, if that law existed I would never abide by it, as I would expect you wouldn't, but suspect you probably would... because after all, it is 'the law' right? Whatever is a law must be written in gold to never be changed again... How does George Bush have the authority over me, my shit, my American dream, and everything I have and have ever worked for, simply by adding the fucking title "president of the United States" to his business card? Hopefully you know, HE DOESN'T and no matter what fucking law is in place in any document anywhere, no matter how many people abide by it, I NEVER will, I assure you. Laws don't own people, people make laws and not every law is flawless.
Crazy laws by U.S state » Make You Go Hmm
go check out that site for a list of crazy laws, then come back and tell me every law is flawless.
Quote:
|
Can you link me to the story on that piece of intel.
|
NIE 2002-16HC, October 2002, Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf (enjoy all the whited out documents though...)
"The Committee is extremely disappointed by the CIA's excessive redactions to the report." News accounts quoting Senate sources estimate that this excessive redaction amounted to 50% of the entire text.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction | Salon
Original Niger Reporting
REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ
McClatchy Washington Bureau | 10/04/2002 | CIA report reveals analysts' split over extent of Iraqi nuclear threat
Quote:
|
I'd propose option d) Bush went with the larger, more likely intelligence information that said that Hussein had WMDs. Numerous different countries intelligence agencies believed this, as did Hussein's generals.
|
Show me some sources.
Quote:
|
Lying about information, actually isn't illegal, unless you are under oath. And I don't think one could make a strong case for Bush lying.
|
So why didn't Dick and Bush ever go under oath again?
Quote:
You didn't post the legal definition of treason. You posted the dictionary definition of treason. Again. You don't know what you are talking about.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
|
What would you call selling weapons to a handful of 'terrorist' states in the middle east, like when we gave the Afghan's a ton of weapons to fight the Soviets in the 80's? I'm pretty sure that would be considered giving aid to the enemy...no? Then again, that was Bush Sr. and Reagans administrations... And what would you call these two huge international wars going on right now? We were supposidly attacked by 19 men who operated in a terrorist cell that happened to be based in Afghanistan, so we invade the entire country, raze it to the ground on all respectable levels, yet do not produce the man responsible, then invade it's neighboring country, which did not attack us and the outcome of which did not produce any, or support the previous intel recieved by 'numerous different countries intelligence agencies', all of which amounted to 4,000+ American soldiers being killed in action, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians, and no end as far as the eye can see....I'm pretty sure that one would fall under 'levying war against them'.