Bush May Have Authorized Torture Via Executive Order. ACLU Obtains New Docs.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

You know, there are threads here, still searchable, in which prominent posters on this board defended the authenticity of the CBS memos for quite some time.

Go ahead and cite the offending posts, then. If you must continue trying to divert attention from your defense of this administration’s torture policies, that is. You might find, upon more careful reading, that you have once again misrepresented a position you find uncomfortable.

The underlying story in the CBS memo case was Bush’s nonperformance of his duties in the military, and that basic truth was well-documented long before any supporting forgeries were created. The flap was, however, useful to his supporters in that it could be used to dismiss the entire uncomfortable issue for them.

The underlying story in the Executive Order case was Bush’s administration’s use of torture, and that basic truth was well-documented long before this document’s existence was even hinted at. The flap will be, however, useful to his supporters in that it can be used to dismiss the entire uncomfortable issue for them.

See how it works?

[Sevastopol]

Geneva Schmeneva,

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

…

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
   …

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

…

1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

[Loopydude]

To be fair, I just tried to search twice, and waited uselessly for something to happen until I gave up in frustration. I think the SDMB is having some widespred technical issues today, so we may have to put off getting proper cites for a bit until the problems are resolved (see ATMB thread on Hamsters).

[Shodan]

@sevastopol

On the contrary, there is little doubt a document to the effect:

• Let’s torture, we’re Americans after all

does exist.

To nobody’s surprise it consists of words, paragraphs and sentences. These become the tools of those those who lack the moral courage to face what is evident.

I’ve no interest in persuading such people to concede in public. It’s WMD all over again.

I can’t, for the life of me, figure out what the above means in English.

I imagine if I had just lost an election to someone for whom I was consumed with irrational hatred, it might be clearer.

Let us know if your smoking gun turns out to be more than a rusty cap pistol.

Regards,
Shodan

[Sevastopol]

Don’t bother yourself with it. It wasn’t meant for you.

[elucidator]

Actually, you illustrate the point with perfection. Rather than discuss the irrationality and immorality of the policy, you pretend that the issue is whether or not GeeDubya’s signature appears on a particular piece of paper or not. Then you try to claim that your political opponents have no reasonable grounds for complaint, and are merely consumed with hatred for the Shining One.

Ain’t so.

[ZombiesAteMyBrain]

@pervert

Perhaps I missed the stuff, but this is not clear to me at all. I noticed one mention of witnessing “sleep deprivation” and some mention of strobe lights and loud music. As someone who is very interested in lambasting the administration with this charge, could you point out to me the part about torture?

Sleep deprivation, hoods, loud music and strobe lights do not in and of themselves contitute torture. When used to excess they can be a tool of torture.

These same techniques were considered ‘torture’ by the European court when used against prisoners here in NI over 30 years ago. They also contravene the USA constitution and USA law.

The US Supreme Court - Furthermore, when President Bush’s father pushed the Convention Against Torture through the United States Senate, he pledged to interpret the phrase “cruel, inhuman and degrading” consistent with the constitutional case law interpreting the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Constitution. It is simply beyond dispute that the “not quite torture” techniques described by anonymous US officials - beatings, prolonged sleep deprivation, binding in painful positions, extreme heat and cold, denial of food and water - violate the US constitution.

http://www.phrusa.org/past_news/iraq051004_stressandduress.html

[Blalron]

@pervert

Sleep deprivation, hoods, loud music and strobe lights do not in and of themselves contitute torture. When used to excess they can be a tool of torture.

I’m sure if you were actually subject to “stress positions”, hoods, loud music, and sleep deprivation, you’d be singing an entirely different tune.

[DrDeth]

@rjung

1. Cite? And no, “Rush Limbaugh said so” doesn’t count.

2. So you’re okay with mere terrorizing, instead of actual physical abuse?

Do you have a cite that they were BURNED with the cigs? The quote above says nothing of the sort. It says “the placing of lit cigarettes into detainees’ ears”- and “placing” is not the word I’d use when I meant “burning”

[Bricker]

@ElvisL1ves

Go ahead and cite the offending posts, then. If you must continue trying to divert attention from your defense of this administration’s torture policies, that is. You might find, upon more careful reading, that you have once again misrepresented a position you find uncomfortable.

The underlying story in the CBS memo case was Bush’s nonperformance of his duties in the military, and that basic truth was well-documented long before any supporting forgeries were created. The flap was, however, useful to his supporters in that it could be used to dismiss the entire uncomfortable issue for them.

The underlying story in the Executive Order case was Bush’s administration’s use of torture, and that basic truth was well-documented long before this document’s existence was even hinted at. The flap will be, however, useful to his supporters in that it can be used to dismiss the entire uncomfortable issue for them.

See how it works?

So finding cites of people defending the authenticity of the Burkett papers really won’t prove anything, because the “underlying story” was Bush’s nonperformance, and the mere fact that the Burkett papers were forgeries has nothing to do with it…right? That’s your defense of the Burkett apologists?

[ZombiesAteMyBrain]

@DrDeth

Do you have a cite that they were BURNED with the cigs? The quote above says nothing of the sort. It says “the placing of lit cigarettes into detainees’ ears”- and “placing” is not the word I’d use when I meant “burning”

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/37316/view?viewtype=best&skip=10

Just this week eight prisoners were found dead while in US custody in Afghanistan. Numerous cases of abuse, torture and death charges against civilian and military officials, the CIA and contracted personnel (mercenaries) have lead to dozens of investigations. They are facing charges detailed in various articles (from the NYTimes, Washington Post, Yahoo, etc.) Charges include: burning detainees hands by igniting an alcohol based cleaner, cigarette burns on the bodies, sometimes in the ear, some complain of being electrocuted, others have been forced to jump off a bridge while hand-cuffed – some drown, many are beaten, some to death, stripped naked so on and so forth.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

So finding cites of people defending the authenticity of the Burkett papers really won’t prove anything, because the “underlying story” was Bush’s nonperformance, and the mere fact that the Burkett papers were forgeries has nothing to do with it…right?

Right. The Burkett case was a diversion that you found useful, as already explained. Now, apply the same concept to the Bush’s administration’s institutionalized use of torture, and this alleged E.O. that AFAIK hasn’t even hit the mainstream media yet. Then report back to us.

That’s your defense of the Burkett apologists?

I’m not defending them, and never have. Either cite that or withdraw it. Now, what’s your defense of Bush’s use of torture?