Bush did this: will he apologize?

The BBQ Pit
41

Care to explain why not? What we are talking about are not illegal abuses. They were the explicitly approved techniques that the government has admitted to and since said they will not do anymore. The manner of incarcerating random people in Gitmo without giving them any way to challenge even their status, much less their guilt, was also explicitly Bush’s policy which, unless you been living under a rock, the Bush administration defended before the Supreme Court.

In short, what happened to this guy was a direct, forseeable, deliberate, and, according to the Bush administration until the SC smackdown justified outcome.

So, how is it a lie to say that Bush is responsible? I don’t think anyone read the OP title as saying that Bush personally locked the chains around the guy’s ankles. But his policies put him there, kept him there without any recourse, and controlled what his treatment would be.

Sure, anyone that studies Islam is a terrorist. Except the U.S., after more than two years of torture and interrogation apparently couldn’t drum up any of this so-called bullshit.

This is exactly what I was talking about. The tortures used were designed precisely because they “don’t sound so bad.” Of course, if friend Brutus was put through what this man was put through, he’d be screaming bloody murder about being tortured, and he knows it.

Welcome to America, foriegn friends!

And people have the gall to complain about those of us who are fed up with this President and those who would defend him right into the belly of the beast.

42

Actually, I was too hasty. It’s not clear whether the abuses were legal or not. It’s just that the people who committed them insist that they were not: and that they were different from what went on in Abu “Garreff”

43

That’s a stupid analogy, and Brutus makes a reasonable point when he says that President Bush didn’t do this.

President Bush didn’t say “Go arrest and torture innocent Afghanis.” This doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have any responsibility for what happened, but characterizing him as the architect of this injustice is disingenuous. In reality, the picture is a lot more complex: Bush set policies, that were then interpreted and implemented by many different parts layers of our Government. For example, I’ve read articles about how the military and intelligence agencies kept horrible records and failed to communicate what was known about detainees as they were passed around before they ended up in Guantanamo. Bush didn’t tell them to be incompetent.

Do I disagree with his policies? Yes. Do I think it’s fair to compare him to a genocidal maniac who explicitly sanctioned genocide? No.

44

But Metacom, this wasn’t mere incompetence. By removing the presumption of innocence and access to the legal system, by ordering the construction of a jail specifically designed to be outside the law, by exterting political pressure to capture as many people as possible, by sanctioning torture (or ‘harsh treatment’ or whatever the hell one could call it) to get information out of the prisoners, Bush caused this guy to be wrongly imprisoned and tortured. What could be more clear?

It’s not genocide, certainly. But Bush issued the orders and set the policies that led to this situation, led to Abu Ghraib and a myriad of other abuses. I’m not suggesting he wrote the orders and policies himself, or even checked them before he signed them, he’s got various assistants to do that. But he did sign them, he did issue the orders and the buck stops with him.

45

Pffft. I don’t think GWB has ever seen a buck (well, the non-money type, anyway) he didn’t try like hell to avoid.

46

Yeah, well that “enemies” list may be just a tiny bit too inclusive for the tastes of free society.

How do you feel when your allies’ Foreign Affairs ministries start warning their citizens against travel to the United States?

Because, you know, we can’t guarantee that you won’t wind up being tortured if you can’t find a non-stop flight to Canada and have to layover in New York.

Last week, Sweden’s Foreign Minister commented, “We have successfully got the Americans to understand that you can’t hold people prisoner for an undefined time without charging them.” Doesn’t reading that sort of thing raise just the slightest suspicion that something is going dreadfully wrong? Americans need to be reminded of such things?

What the fuck?

47

Are you kidding? He is most certainly the architect of what happened. He CHANGED the normal policies, deliberately and with tons and tons of disdain for those that warned that there were good reasons for former safeguards. He made up new ones that deviated from accepted international norms. He approved the use of stress tortures. He denied any sort of due process and fought against it. How is that not being the architect of the way this guy was treated? This was locked up, not given due process, and tortured. All policies which Bush approved and has defended.

As I said, the policies in question were not a matter of incompetence: that was certainly a result, but not the core problem. Our system and moral convictions about due process, which Bush tried to abbrogate exist in part precisely to make sure that there are incentives against incompetence. Bush removed those incentives. He blocked all the measures that would allow any active, adversarial correction of mistakes. He fought against him. He approved and fought for the policies that would allow:

  1. people to be picked up and locked up indefinately with no way to challenge their status
  2. the interrogation methods used, which almost certainly constitute torture under the U.S. own torture laws, but his people have claimed was not torture

If you want to go further and argue that Bush and his people are likewise responsible because they apparently put little effort into checking up for things like incompetance and abuse, and were basically asleep at the switch, then I wouldn’t argue with you. But points 1 and 2 are already sufficient. That’s what Bush did, and is responsible for the obvious consequences of.

Did I do so? No. I hope I can trust Godwin to not derail the thread, no matter whose fault it is for bringing it in.

To use an example you’ll find less easy to weasel out of with a Godwin beg-off, however, is what you are saying that if I pay someone to beat up my wife, and she dies as a result due to the incompetance of my hired thug, I’m not responsible for EVEN THE BEATING since I didn’t physically do it?

48

Thanks for answering my questions, Brutus. I was hoping, however, that you would have come back with some tangible evidence that suggests that either portions or the entirety of the story is untrue. But while you did your usual poo-pooing out-of-hand, of all accusations against our Commander-in-Chief and our military, merely because of your knee-jerk republicanism, I did your homework for you and uncovered some articles that do seem to call portions of the linked story into question.

According to a story in El Mundo, this man had been arrested for bank robbery and served time in Portugal for the crime, [link. It’s in Spanish, so if you can’t read it, there’s a very short synopsys in English that can be found here.], upon his release made his way directly to Afghanistan (not Pakistan) and, per this BBC article “was part of a group of 156 suspected al-Qaeda fighters arrested by Pakistani authorities as they attempted to escape Afghanistan’s Tora Bora mountains into Pakistan,” not sold by villagers to the Pakistani police.

My Spanish was never very good to begin with, but it appears as though the Portuguese authorities believe his connection to Al Qaeda is that the guy he robbed the bank with had some link to them and that the robbery bore “similarities” to other robberies in the area that were used to finance Al Qaeda activities. There’s something about a brother and a fake Belgian passport, too, but I can’t quite make out what connection they’re trying to draw there.

What I find disturbing, however, is that, while the characterization of him as some innocent Swede simply studying Islam in Pakistan appears to be a complete fabrication, you still don’t have a problem with us dragging him off to Cuba, locking him up in a cage, exposing him to inhumane conditions and tortures, not affording him any legal representation and continuing to hold him for over 2 years for the mere purpose of trying to torment answers out of him, not as an actual punishment for any particular crime. And when the U.S. government finally gave up, realizing they were never going to elicit from him what they wanted, they just let him go, as if this supposed threat he posed was somehow going to disappear just because he didn’t relent to their abuse.

So how is his capture, extended torture, and eventual release, supposed to make me feel any safer from an Al Qaeda attack if he really is an Al Qaeda operative? And if he isn’t (which they apparently couldn’t get any proof out of him for), then how can anyone even begin to justify his imprisonment – especially without legal representation?

49

Thanks you for the homework Shayna: I do feel decieved by the initial news story, especially since it’s one that right-wing sites generally link to, so I figured it would be fairly safe.

Of course, it doesn’t change the basic issue at all. Either this person is innocent of being an Al Qaeda crony or he is guilty. The American government apparently thinks they can just release him, however. So either way, this is screwed up: either he’s a dnagerous guy they are springing back into the world (perhaps in part because Bush’s policies totally fucked up any possible case they could have brought against him), or an innocent guy who suffered pointlessly. And in either case, the legal issue remains the same: torture is wrong, and the denial of due process is wrong, no matter who it is. The principle is bigger than this or that person.

50

Brutus is more into ethnically cleansing hearts and minds. He’ll stick up for anything as long as someone’s getting hurt. Don’t waste your time.

51

I shouldn’t worry about Brutus. You’re missing the sweet and sensitive side.

See since the Supreme Court smacked down the Solicitor General who cooked this up, it turns out Brutus’ military buds in Gitmo are filthy war criminals, each one, spitworthy and deserving of dishonorable discharge and Leavenworth for a hard labor stretch with the common criminals.

Likewise those USAF who helped are the scum of the earth. There’s a fair chance they’ll escape a tribunal for their crimes because cowardice has long being the defining characteristic of this administrations’ military. And dishonesty.

That’s not easy for a simple soul like B to take the friends and admired coming from a smalll pool, so have some consideration dammit.

52

Thank you :confused:

The land of justice…

…and freedom…

…and transparency.

We all love you!

53

No, but Merijeek did, and he’s who I was responding to:

That comment was aimed at him, not you.

I responded to someone who compared Bush to Hitler, and you come back characterizing me as a “weasel” because I included Hitler in my response. :rolleyes: I’m understanding more and more why Brutus often comes off as an asshole.

And no, that isn’t what I’m saying. You’d be partly responsible for your wifes death. Responsibility isn’t an all-or-nothing thing. Bush is partly responsible for what happened. He’s not as responsible for this has some are portraying him to be. That’s what I was trying to say.

lambchops, thanks for the reasoned response. I pretty much agree with what your saying. I was responding to Merijeek. The “Bush is Hitler/the US is Nazi Germany” comparisons are getting more frequent, and I find them really offensive. That’s what I was responding to.

Maybe I should have quoted what I was responding to in order to make it more clear or something. :wink:

54

Bush and allegations that his fraternity, DKE, had hazed incoming pledges by branding them with an iron.

55

I believe speculations about why Bush won’t apologize are vastly overcomplicated. He won’t apologise because he is not sorry.

Tris

56

Well, he is sorry. He just doesn’t feel sorry.

57

And this is the pisser of fighting terrorists, rather than having a convenient country or two we could swoop down on.

How do you determine who is a terrorist and who isn’t? Take the 19 9/11 hijackers for example. Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, they probably couldn’t be arrested (under criminal law), much less hucked in prison. On what evidence would we have held them? (Again, assuming it was handled under current criminal law.) Currently, post 9/11, we ‘err on the side of caution’. Look suspicious? Go to Gitmo, do not pass Go, etc. And tearing off to the boonies of Pakistan and Afghanistan for ‘religious training’ or whatever strikes me as damned suspicious. (Although I suppose learning to kill the infidel in some Afghan camp would be considered ‘religious training’ by some.) What’s plan B? Hello sir, are you a terrorist? No? Well, off you go then!

As to this young religious scholar/bank robber, I would guess that his movements will be rather closely watched, whatever his story is. Or, the military/US gov’t bowed to pressure from so-called humanitarians and let the wrong fucker go. Time will tell either way, not that we will neccesarily know.

58

(emphasis mine)

Nice to know where your sights lie.

Giving the government absolute power to do whatever they want with anyone legally strikes me to be as dangerous as letting terrorists into the country.

Erring on the side of caution? I’m sorry, but simply grabbing hundreds of people who happen to look suspicious, dumping them in prisons without any legal rights and torturing them is erring so far on the side of caution that the light from caution could take a few hundred years to reach those responsible for this point, at this rate.

Well, Brutus, I doubt that you believe that any wisdom could be gained from examining a viewpoint even vaguely perpendicular to your own, but shockingly enough, some do believe in such foolishness. And some even believe that not everyone who follows a different religion than one’s own is an extremist. What a world, huh?

Plan B might include, I don’t know, actually investigating what he did on his trip, as opposed to simply noting that he went to a location which may or may not contain some people who may or may not be planning to attack a country that may or may not be the US? Before you throw him away with no legal representation and stomp all over his rights (among other, more physical things)?

59

:rolleyes:

Drop the ‘We are the world’ crap. I never stated anything that could be interpreted as believing that all other religions are extremists. (Especially since I am a atheist.) You guys pull that shit a lot; Make up something about whoever, then expect them to defend it. Why is that, I wonder?

60

Brutus, you stated a couple of posts back that going to an Arab country to research their religion was suspicious enough to throw them in jail and treat them under ‘enemy combatant’ (whatever that means) status.

Okay, what I said was an exaggeration, I’ll give you that much. But someone going to research Islam suspicious enough that he should be locked up? Ridiculous.