Reelect a torturer?

[FriendRob]

Consider:

• The Bush Administration (BA) has arrested people and locked them away for YEARS without a trial of any kind. They shipped them off to Guantanamo so that they would not be subject to US laws preventing this sort of thing. (A questionable claim, but the Supreme Court seems to be going along with the ruse.)

-These people, not convicted of any crime, have been subjected to TORTURE that was approved by the BA and personally authorized by Donald Rumsfeld. If you doubt this, think how Americans would react if captured US soldiers were subjected to “waterboarding”, in which they were forcibly held underwater until they thought they were drowning. This was one of the approved methods of “interrogation”. Others were sleep deprivation and “stress positions” - the famous photo of the hooded, naked man on a box with wires attached to him is an example of the latter.

-Bush argued in front of the Supreme Court that after more than two years, he couldn’t release these prisoners because he wasn’t done “interrogating” them. Can you imagine being subjected to waterboarding for two years and not consider that torture?

-Several prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Guantanamo have been tortured to DEATH.

-The BA has violated the Geneva Conventions at prisons in Iraq by having “ghost prisoners” that were hidden from the Red Cross. Probably the whole setup at Guantanamo is in violation of the conventions, although the BA claims they don’t apply there.

How can a president who has violated one of our most respected treaties, who has authorized and continues to authorize torture, be on the verge of reelection? Why isn’t this man being impeached instead?

[marky33]

The US does want it wants because it can – it is the typical bully. It is an awful example to set for the rest of the world but if Bush were not in charge would things have been handled any differently?

[Sevastopol]

How can a president who has violated one of our most respected treaties, who has authorized and continues to authorize torture, be on the verge of reelection?

Lots of America is proud, having just such a man as President.

Consider “Liberal Media Bias.” What it means to swathes of America is, that sure they were never concerned whether Bush had a cause of War.

The US needed to feel better. Bush knew that. He knew that the only way was for our boys to win a war, a big one. The US had to feel, yes Strong. But could he just come out and say that?

No, the Liberal Media Bias doesn’t allow that. So he had to spin all that fairy floss for those coastal Liberals. And dammit, now we do feel better.

[msmith537]

Is there a debate here or is this just another idiotic anti-Bush rant?

[Squink]

@msmith537

Is there a debate here or is this just another idiotic anti-Bush rant?

Sure there’s a debate here, but all the people who support these outrages don’t want to talk about them in public. Do you care to step up to the plate msmith537?

[XT]

@FriendRob

How can a president who has violated one of our most respected treaties, who has authorized and continues to authorize torture, be on the verge of reelection? Why isn’t this man being impeached instead?

You mean the UN Charter for ‘most respected treaties’? Well, I suppose the same could be said for Clinton then too, as NATO/US didn’t have ‘permission’ to go into Bosnia either. If memory serves Reagan went into Panama and Grenada and I don’t recall if he approval either…I could be wrong about that. I don’t recall if Kennedy had approval for Vietnam either…the last time the US waged war and had approval (if my memory at 1 am is right) was Korea.

Then, you could say the same thing for a whole host of nations (and THEIR rulers) that have ALSO violated the Charter by waging ‘aggressive war’ without approval of the counsel or justification from the Charter. The US (not just Bush) does what it wants, just the same as the other members of the UNSC…always has. Getting ‘approval’ is more for show, so that you can wear the white hat. If you can’t get it, you just do whatever you wanted to do anyway.

Cite that Bush authorized torture? I’m sure there is something mind you, but if you have a cite handy that you are working from it will give some structure to the ‘debate’, instead of random ranting and the host of folks that will just come in and kumbya.

Can you list out some actual things Bush COULD be impeached for? That would be a good place to start. You might want to look up impeachment first and then go from there with a thoughtful list instead of a rant…i.e. keep it real. Again, it will give some structure to your ‘debate’. I’m pretty sure there actually ARE some things you MIGHT be able to TRY and impeach Bush for btw, but I seriously doubt that the war in Iraq or ‘authorized torture’ will be on the actual list.

-XT

[XT]

@Squink

Sure there’s a debate here, but all the people who support these outrages don’t want to talk about them in public. Do you care to step up to the plate msmith537?

Are we debating ‘bad things Bush has done’ or actual things he could be Impeached for? Perhaps you’d like to take a shot first at defining exactly what we are debating here. Depending on the answer will frame my own response (or lack of further response in this thread)…if we are going to talk about ‘bad things Bush has done’ I have my own list. If we are going to talk about things he could/should be Impeached for, then you need to throw out a list of actual things he could be Impeached for and we can debate that. I can’t think of any REAL things he could be Impeached for myself to be honest. If you have some though lets take a look.

-XT

p.s. I don’t know if this thread will just die…not much activity on it so far, so I’m not going to waste a lot of time. Here is a cite that discusses the basics of Impeachment. Maybe it will help.

@Elizabeth B. Bazan

Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice
The impeachment process provides a mechanism for removal of the President, Vice President, and other federal civil officers found to have engaged in “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Constitution places the responsibility and authority to determine whether to impeach and to draft articles of impeachment in the hands of the House of Representatives. A number of means have been used to trigger the House’s investigation, but the ultimate decision in all instances as to whether or not impeachment is appropriate rests with the House. Should the House vote to impeach and vote articles of impeachment specifying the grounds upon which impeachment is based, the matter is then presented to the Senate for trial.

Under the Constitution, the Senate has the unique power to try an impeachment. The decision as to whether to convict on each of the articles must be made separately. A conviction must be supported by a two-thirds majority of the Senators present. A conviction on any one of the articles of impeachment brought against an individual is sufficient to constitute conviction in the trial of the impeachment. Should a conviction occur, then the Senate must determine what the appropriate judgment is in the case. The Constitution limits the judgment to either removal from office or removal and prohibition against holding any future offices of “honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” The precedents in impeachment suggest that removal may flow automatically from conviction, but that the Senate must vote to prohibit the individual from holding future offices of public trust, if that judgment is also deemed appropriate. A simple majority vote is required on a judgment. Conviction on impeachment does not foreclose the possibility of criminal prosecution arising out of the same factual situation. The Constitution precludes the President from extending executive clemency to anyone to preclude their impeachment by the House or trial or conviction by the Senate.

[msmith537]

@Squink

Sure there’s a debate here, but all the people who support these outrages don’t want to talk about them in public. Do you care to step up to the plate msmith537?

No, it’s not my job to crystalize a debatable topic out of someones Pit rant.

Is the OP asking if these things should have happened? Did they in fact happen as he described? Why would someone vote for a person who did these things? IS Bush even responsible?

I was under the impression that GD was for picking a topic and formulating a position to be debated. IMHO, MPSIMS or The PIT is the place for free-flowing musings on various topics.

[asterion]

@xtisme

I don’t recall if Kennedy had approval for Vietnam either…the last time the US waged war and had approval (if my memory at 1 am is right) was Korea.

Gulf War I, actually.

[BobLibDem]

As far as I know, the US did not run torture chambers in Vietnam or Bosnia or Grenada. It used to be a matter of pride for US servicemen that their country did not practice torture. For one thing, it’s the right thing not to do it and for another, it precludes the possibility of captured American soldiers being tortured in retaliation. Now we’ve seen macabre pictures of American servicewomen grinning like game show models next to mutilated corpses. The moral high ground has been permanently abandoned. What intelligence gains were realized have been more than offset by the righteous outrage in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

The blame for this goes all the way to the top. Yet the military has successfully made the little guys pay the price. This repulsive behavior was condoned and encouraged all the way up the ladder to Rumsfeld and Bush. Both should have resigned in disgrace.

[Gatopescado]

@FriendRob

…think how Americans would react if captured US soldiers were subjected to “waterboarding”, in which they were forcibly held underwater until they thought they were drowning. This was one of the approved methods of “interrogation”. Others were sleep deprivation and “stress positions” - the famous photo of the hooded, naked man on a box with wires attached to him is an example of the latter…

Nah, we prefer our soldiers to be stripped, mulitilated, burned and dragged thru the streets amid cheering crowds of dirty-type folks where thier poor, lifeless corpse’s can suffer further indignity while being filmed for prime-time so the families and loved ones can watch. :rolleyes:

I’d vote for Ghandi, but last time I checked, he wasn’t nominated. And it might depend on what he planned on doing with the inheritance tax.

[XT]

@BobLibDem

As far as I know, the US did not run torture chambers in Vietnam or Bosnia or Grenada. It used to be a matter of pride for US servicemen that their country did not practice torture. For one thing, it’s the right thing not to do it and for another, it precludes the possibility of captured American soldiers being tortured in retaliation. Now we’ve seen macabre pictures of American servicewomen grinning like game show models next to mutilated corpses. The moral high ground has been permanently abandoned. What intelligence gains were realized have been more than offset by the righteous outrage in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Well, leaving aside Grenada, I’d say that there WERE instances of torture in both Vietnam and Bosnia (though probably not US torture in Bosnia)…its called war and I’m pretty sure it happened. In fact, isn’t that part of Kerry’s point about torture etc in Vietnam?? I suppose you can make the case that the President is ultimately responsible…but Impeachment for them?? Not without proof of a direct link (and I’m unsure if even then you’d have a case for Impeachment).

Yes, we’ve seen pictures of torture by American service people in Iraq…what we haven’t seen produced yet is documentation linking that directly to an executive order by the President of the US. If you have such documents Bob, bring em out…I haven’t seen them yet. I’ve seen some SPECULATION about such a link…but no facts.

As far as what is/has happened at Guantanamo, we don’t really know (thought the Congress and the Senate oversight committees do), but I find it hard to believe that prisoners have been tortured to death there. Again, afaik there is no PROOF that either such things have in fact happened (though I do believe some torture has happened there…but thats just my belief), nor that there is an executive order linking such tortures to the president. Again, if you have such proof then show it so we can all review and judge.

@asterion

Gulf War I, actually.

:smack: Doh! Well, I obviously forgot all about that. My only defense was that it was 1am and I wasn’t thinking straight. Still, GWI was the exception not the rule…which was my point. The makeup and exclusivity of the UNSC means that you are rarely going to get them to agree on anything…especially unanimously which is what you need.

-XT

[Squink]

@gatopescado

Nah, we prefer our soldiers to be stripped, mulitilated, burned and dragged thru the streets amid cheering crowds of dirty-type folks where thier poor, lifeless corpse’s can suffer further indignity while being filmed for prime-time so the families and loved ones can watch. :rolleyes:

Dude, those guys weren’t soldiers, they were private sector operatives from Blackwater Security.

Yes, we’ve seen pictures of torture by American service people in Iraq…what we haven’t seen produced yet is documentation linking that directly to an executive order by the President of the US. If you have such documents Bob, bring em out…I haven’t seen them yet. I’ve seen some SPECULATION about such a link…but no facts.

Here’s a bit on the Ghost Detainees at

Closely related to this failure, is the most dramatic revelation coming out of the Sept. 9 hearings: the admission by Gen. Paul Kern—the appointing officer for the Fay-Jones investigation on the role of Military Intelligence—that there were “dozens and perhaps up to 100” so-called “ghost detainees,” that is, prisoners brought in by the CIA who were kept “off the books” and unrecorded, in violation of Army regulations and U.S. obligations under international treaty arrangements.

The number of deaths under court court investigation also puts a severe strain on the credibility of the president’s ‘few bad apples’ explanation:

Forty to sixty incidents is already lot and the number of deaths in captivity we’ve seen in court is a very striking number, about 50 right now – several of those looking suspiciously like torture murders.

If it’s not just a few bad apples, then what the heck is going on? Are our soldiers all closet torture freaks, or has someone at a high level ordered them to torture people?
I don’t believe that first possibility for a moment, which leaves the second, unless someone cares to come up with a more benign excluded middle? I’d like to hear it.

[Squink]

Whoops, that second quote was from xtisme. Sorry for forgetting it.

[PaulFitzroy]

Dude, those guys weren’t soldiers, they were private sector operatives from Blackwater Security.

How do you know he was referring to what happened in Fallujah? The same exact thing, involving the same chanting, screaming Muslim crowds, happened in Mogadishu, Somalia as depicted in ‘Black Hawk Down,’ and those were not private contractors.

What intelligence gains were realized have been more than offset by the righteous outrage in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

I have a feeling they didn’t much care for us before what happened at Abu Gharib either. Remember the cheering crowds screaming ‘Death to America’ right after 9/11 in much of the Muslim world? Or is that just ‘mild dislike’ turned into full-blown ‘Righteous Hatred’ by a prison abuse scandal?

[Shayna]

@xtisme

Cite that Bush authorized torture? I’m sure there is something mind you, but if you have a cite handy that you are working from it will give some structure to the ‘debate’, instead of random ranting and the host of folks that will just come in and kumbya.

Here you go:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_bush_062304,00.html

Bush Claimed Right To Waive Torture Laws
**Associated Press **
June 23, 2004

WASHINGTON - **The Bush administration laid out its legal reasoning for denying terror war suspects the protections of international humanitarian law ** but immediately repudiated a key memo arguing that torture might be justified in the fight against al-Qaida.

The release Tuesday of hundreds of pages of internal memos by the White House was meant to blunt criticism that President Bush had laid the groundwork for the abuses of Iraqi prisoners by condoning torture. The president insisted Tuesday: “I have never ordered torture.”

But critics said the developments left unresolved some questions about the administration’s current guidelines for interrogating prisoners in Iraq and around the world. For example, a 2002 order signed by Bush says the president reserves the right to suspend the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war at any time.

…

The White House released Defense Department memos detailing some of the harsh interrogation methods approved - and then rescinded - by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in 2002 and 2003. The administration continues to refuse to say what interrogation methods are approved for use now.

…

An Aug. 1, 2002, Justice Department memo argues that torture - and even deliberate killing - of prisoners in the terror war could be justified as necessary to protect the United States. The memo from then-assistant attorney general Jay Bybee also offers a restricted definition of torture, saying only actions that cause severe pain akin to organ failure would be torture.

…

The White House also released documents detailing some of the most harsh interrogation methods **Rumsfeld approved for use on prisoners ** at the lockup at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Rumsfeld’s Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including:

-Putting detainees in “stress positions,” such as standing, for up to four hours.

-Removing prisoners’ clothes.

-Intimidating detainees with dogs.

-Interrogating prisoners for 20 hours at a time.

-Forcing prisoners to wear hoods during interrogations and transportation.

-Shaving detainees’ heads and beards.

-Using “mild, non-injurious physical contact,” such as poking.

Prisoners at Abu Ghraib were interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a time, kept hooded and naked, intimidated with dogs and forcibly shaved. Bush and other administration officials have said other treatment at the Iraqi prison, such as forcing prisoners to perform sex acts, beating them and piling them in a naked human pyramid, were unquestionably illegal.

…

Bush had agreed in February 2002 that al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were not protected by the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war because they violated the laws of war themselves.

Bush’s previously secret Feb. 7, 2002, order also agrees with Justice and Pentagon lawyers that a president can ignore U.S. law and treaties.

“I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that I have the authority to suspend Geneva (conventions) as between the United States and Afghanistan,” Bush wrote. “I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts.”

Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq.

But Rumsfeld acknowledged last week that he ordered a suspected terrorist to be secretly held in Iraq without notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said he approved an unspecified number of other, similar secret detentions.

[duffer]

@BobLibDem

As far as I know, the US did not run torture chambers in Vietnam

According to Kerry in Congressional testimony, we killed them first. Including the women and children.

No, I’m not going to waste time searching and parsing a cite. You know full well by now what his testimony entailed.

[BobLibDem]

Thanks, Shayna. Saves me the bother of responding to a cite for what is common knowledge. Bush and Rumsfeld are intimitely involved in the whole affair. If someone has a cite for any occasion where anyone in the administration ever took blame for anything, I’d sure like to see it.