U.S.: Did President Bush Order Torture?

[moghrabi]

White House Must Explain “Executive Order” Cited in FBI E-Mail
(New York, December 21, 2004) U.S. President George W. Bush should fully explain why an FBI document suggests he authorized unlawful interrogation methods, Human Rights Watch said today. An e-mail to senior FBI officials released yesterday under a Freedom of Information Act request repeatedly referred to an Executive Order that permitted military interrogators in Iraq to place detainees in painful stress positions, impose sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, intimidate them with military dogs and use other coercive methods.

.........

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/21/usint9925.htm

 

[no1important]

I don't think he came out and said torture them. I think he may of hinted or suggested it. However it would not suprise me. I would of thought it would of been Rumsfeld ordering it before bush but "W" thinks he still lives in the old west and old west justice should prevail.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: U.S.: Did President B

The Bush White House has been pretending that international laws do not apply to the US since the beginning of the Bush administration. They have consistently sought out ways to evade both international and US domestic laws on torture and detention.

It is clear that they do not plan to abide by any law they find even the slightest bit inconvenient. Whether explicitly or implicitly this government has encouraged torture. This e-mail is making it look very much like like it is explicit though. That negates any claims of it being "a few bad apples" and puts the onus directly on the White House when it comes time for reckoning.

No more plausible deniability for the Bush regime...they are criminals.

 

[moghrabi]

Is this something new, Rev? He was a criminal before coming to the White House. He collected all the top criminals in the CIA and put them in his cabinet. I doubt very much the idea that he never knew about the abuse. He knew it, encourage it, and blamed it on the little guy.

 

[no1important]

I always thought Rumsfeld was going to be the "fall guy" in all this. But maybe there is more serious stuff going on we do not know about yet, and when that comes out Rumsfeld will be the "fall guy" for bush.

 

[moghrabi]

Well if you notice that Bush is very nice to Rumsfeld even though he is the one who screwed up big time. I think Bush is worried if he let Rummy go out as a fall guy, he might expose serious things that Bush does not want us to know. Any ideas?

 

[Shmad]

Even if he hinted or suggested at torturing them it makes no difference.. Its just like coming out and saying "Let those bastards suffer.. do whatever you want to them".

I'm sorry people, but shit like this has got to stop.. How long do you seriously think it will be before they come up with some inane reason to invade Canada? I mean after all our lumber industry is "unfair" in ONLY their eyes.

They don't care what everyone else thinks, should that alarm us? Yes and No. We should be prepared. This is a NAZI-ran style of government hell bent on terror and fear.. Preparation is required.

 

[ddobney]

It seems that no amount of good news can overcome the prejudices against Bush. Would you prefer the situation before as it was in Afganistan or Iraq?
After I saw the films of Kurds dying from Hussein's chemical gas, gasping and crawling toward water in a futile attempt to save their dying children, I had a different perspective on the total situation. Have you not seen these films?

 

[Andem]

It's one thing when you go into a country to liberate the people. It's a totally different thing when you go into a country to exploit it's resources and using "liberation" and false pretenses of 11/09/01 as an excuse to invade a country. The US is doing the latter.

 

[no1important]

Well when all is said and done Iraq or Afghanistan will be just as bad off or worse off before American "freedom" comes to those countries.

The warlords and drug lords will be taking over Afghanistan when America pulls out and when or if America ever leaves Iraq there will be a civil war.

So I don't see any positive changes for either country due to America.

 

[ddobney]

I take it that I am the only one to have seen the films about some of Hussein's inhuman acts. Gassing, torture, rape rooms, childrens prisons, live human shredding, mass graves. Pity.
It gives you a different emotional understanding of the reality that existed. And gives you a different perspective on events.

 

[moghrabi]

Re: RE: U.S.: Did President Bush Order Torture?

I take it that I am the only one to have seen the films about some of Hussein's inhuman acts. Gassing, torture, rape rooms, childrens prisons, live human shredding, mass graves. Pity.
It gives you a different emotional understanding of the reality that existed. And gives you a different perspective on events.

I looked on FOX news and they archived it. They have the new version called Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo abuse. Would that do?

On a serious note: Why when Hussein allegedly was doing all of the above inhumane acts did the US support him? You know that he was their favorite guy until very recently. didn't you? Why they supported him? Why did they provide him with the ammunition? Why they didn't stop him then? Many questions, few answers.

 

[Mooseskin Johnny]

Hussein got that gas from the US. Rummy gave it to him when Reagan was Pres.

Did you actually see pictures of this "human shredding"? Or was this another story like the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of their cribs; made up to make the enemy appear inhuman.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

What I don't understand in that case, is that when an accusation is made against the US few people will doubt here it's not true; but as Mooseskin seems to be an example of (no offense), questions rise when the same things are said of Saddam Hussein ("Did you actually see pictures of this "human shredding"? Or was this another story like the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of their cribs; made up to make the enemy appear inhuman.") Wouldn't it be fair if we treated them the same way, with the same critical point of view?

 

[moghrabi]

Rick. The difference here is that there were no babies tossed out of incubators, there no shredding machine. It is all American propaganda to get to their goals and win International opinion.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

Whether or not that is true, I don't know. My point is that I have noticed that when people criticize the US, everything is accepted as the truth. When the US criticizes Iraq, it is propaganda (which could be true). But why are "we" being so critical when things are said about Iraq, but not when things are said about the US? That's the feeling I have here.

 

[moghrabi]

Because the US creates the propaganda. it is natural for anyone to question them.

An example, Iraq had WMD --- NO WMD found
Iraq had a relationship with Bin Laden ---- no such thing
Iraq lied about this or that --------- no such thing
Iraq killed babies in incubators --------- lies
Iraq destroyed Kuwait ------ been there, no damage
Iraq illegally invaded Kuwait ..... BS, permission was granred.

so you see, you start questioning the American motive after so many lies.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

But how do we know they are all lies? I mean, no WMD found, true, a relationship with Bin Laden - hasn't been found either, I agree. But the others things you say: how do you know it's just propaganda? And how do we know it's not propaganda from the "other" side?

 

[moghrabi]

Let them find them and show them to us. That is what I am asking for. Show us the proof.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

You mean the WMD? I thought I already agreed with you on that part.