Bush says U.S. seeks to eliminate torture worldwide

nnndave

Diabloii.Net Member
Suicidal Zebra said:
America should be looking more closely at what goes on in hazing rituals then. Time that pathetic set of pseudo-rituals were eradicated.
agreed. What usually starts out as "constructive hazing" to teach discipline and respect usually escalates into pleasure at the expense of other's demise. When the cycle keeps repeating itself, the hazing only escalates and people forget why they are doing it in the first place. In this case it was those guards at the prison. It still isn't torture though.

It is a classic case of immiturity and irresponsibility, and they should be dealt with accordingly.
 
nnndave said:
agreed. What usually starts out as "constructive hazing" to teach discipline and respect usually escalates into pleasure at the expense of other's demise. When the cycle keeps repeating itself, the hazing only escalates and people forget why they are doing it in the first place. In this case it was those guards at the prison. It still isn't torture though.

It is a classic case of immiturity and irresponsibility, and they should be dealt with accordingly.
Not to mention that hazing is illegal as far as I know. You can get into a good bit of trouble, not to mention kicked out of school for it. Hell, your entire fraternity or sorority can, in some cases, lose it's charter. Perhaps if we held the military to the same standards we'd be able to work towards eliminating it?
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
Not to mention that hazing is illegal as far as I know. You can get into a good bit of trouble, not to mention kicked out of school for it. Hell, your entire fraternity or sorority can, in some cases, lose it's charter. Perhaps if we held the military to the same standards we'd be able to work towards eliminating it?
You are kidding, right? Eliminate rites of passage machismo from the military? Isn't this garbage about "may I touch you, trainee?" bad enough?

The degree of this PC horse waste in the military is already so voluminous that "you need wings to stay above it". The amount of hazing should and is a command issue - for once, let the commanders deal with it. I still have two little puncture wounds from my Airborne badge 'blood wings', and this had to be given to myself and a fellow officer by our "Black Hat" 1SG because of this very sort of silliness.

Once you let the faint-of-heart fairies loose in military affairs, you debase and degrade the entire structure. There's been a little backpedalling from the rocks approached during Clinton's reign, but we still are far less 'tough' than soldiers of yesteryear.
 
jmervyn said:
You are kidding, right? Eliminate rites of passage machismo from the military? Isn't this garbage about "may I touch you, trainee?" bad enough?
Aye. What I was doing, however, was making the valid point that it's still illegal, and "hazing" prisoners is no more something to be proud of than torturing them.

The degree of this PC horse waste in the military is already so voluminous that "you need wings to stay above it". The amount of hazing should and is a command issue - for once, let the commanders deal with it. I still have two little puncture wounds from my Airborne badge 'blood wings', and this had to be given to myself and a fellow officer by our "Black Hat" 1SG because of this very sort of silliness.
Oh, stop it already. You military people can knock each other's teeth out for all I care if it makes you feel like you've got bigger balls as a result of it. I'm talking about the prisoners.

Once you let the faint-of-heart fairies loose in military affairs, you debase and degrade the entire structure. There's been a little backpedalling from the rocks approached during Clinton's reign, but we still are far less 'tough' than soldiers of yesteryear.
Again, stop your whining. Castrate one another for all I care. I'm not talking about how you people treat one another.
 

nnndave

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
Again, stop your whining. Castrate one another for all I care. I'm not talking about how you people treat one another.
Then why did you say you wanted to hold the military to the same standards as athletic teams/fraternities, etc?

Besides the laws against hazing are non-circumstantial while in lots of cases the incident in question is circumstantial. Its hard to explain. Hazing is good and bad. People only hear about the bad though.
 
nnndave said:
Then why did you say you wanted to hold the military to the same standards as athletic teams/fraternities, etc?
I asked "perhaps we should?" It was more dark humor than anything. Clearly we don't, and with good reason. Can you imagine if we let people treat each other the way the military treats people?

People only hear about the bad though.
Fair enough--this is the case with many things. Still doesn't make it something we should be proud of.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
Oh, stop it already. You military people can knock each other's teeth out for all I care if it makes you feel like you've got bigger balls as a result of it. I'm talking about the prisoners.
Well they ARE military detainees {sniff} {stalks off}

j/k, of course. As I said before, this issue is being used to club Shrub like a baby seal, with absolute cynicism by the Dems, if I might say so. Some have been to Gitmo now, and realize what a resort area that is for these scum, particularly in comparison with other jails and probably even some of our own. But if he just keeps letting them beat him silly with it, that's his own fault.
 

rikstaker

Diabloii.Net Member
Freemason said:
Yes we did support them during the Cold War. We did have a greater enemy then. I know I know, the US is still the bad guys. Frankly we're never going to be appreciated. Yet what do we do, we still go right ahead and fix the problems. Pres. Bush couldn't care less about what you think about what we're doing. Why should he? You're going to call him evil no matter what he does. Evil for taking action (Iraq) and evil for not taking action (Sudan). When you can't win, go ahead and do it anyway. They'll respect you later..
I can understand your sentiments-US admin is held accounted for the bad things that it does/that happen during its tenure. And the good things are forgotten:One such thing that didnt get media attention it deserved,even from Arab media was this:Narendar Modi(accused of genocide(HR reports confirmed his involvement) in an indian state causing the deaths of 2000 muslims) was denied a US visa,because of the genocide.

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/devraj.php?articleid=5273

oops,u might want to check this instead: :p
http://washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050321-095914-2186r.htm

Being an Indian myself-I cant appreicate the US enough for that,though it was also seen as an "interference" in some Indain sections :rolleyes: ,but seculars/Liberals & the majority section hailed the US .But the issue never got into prominence in International media.So you are very right there-that the US isnt appreciated on many things like this.


Freemason said:
That's a weak apology. "Pretty harsh"? How about blatently trying to give our enemy more reason to cut the heads off our people? That's sedition. Look it up, it's punishable by death. Too bad nobody has the cojones to actually enforce it.
Freemason said:
Gitmo wasn't what got out of hand one night. That was in Iraq. One small group of miscreants had a drunken party and took pictures.
Nice moulding skills.Thats the kind of things I dont like from the conservatives.
I am not against the US,but I hate warmongers who are so obsessed with their viewpoint that anyone who doesnt see it their way or condemns their ways is either unpatriotic or seditioinsts or siding with the terrorist/providing them with excuse/reason for their ways(cutting heads off)?

Freemason said:
BS. You have no leg to stand on until you can prove we've done anything even remotely close to what Pol Pot did. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Saddam, etc.
There is an old saying in India,that whenever you go to a house asking for the bride's hand go with your ugliest friends,so you look 1337. :strong:

Trying to look pretty in comparison to Nazi's/fascists,is in reality the guilt,setting convenient low standards for yourself are you?

Freemason said:
Simple. Because losing the war means your farm is gone. Just ask a Russian. Ask a "poor slob farmer" (note how he slanders farmers) from Russia why he picked up a rifle and killed the Germans. Ask a "poor slob farmer" from Kansas why he picked up a rifle and killed the Japanese. Go ask your grandpa why he killed them. They did it not because they wanted to fight but because losing the war is worse. Just ask a Cambodian who survived the killing fields. Then you'll have your answer.
Nice & dramatic reasoning but blown out of context,you can equate Saddam to Hitler but equating Iraq war to ww2 is just plain silly.Sry.

Rik
 
jmervyn said:
Well they ARE military detainees {sniff} {stalks off}
*buys jmerv a beer* There now, it's okay. All in good fun.

j/k, of course. As I said before, this issue is being used to club Shrub like a baby seal, with absolute cynicism by the Dems, if I might say so. Some have been to Gitmo now, and realize what a resort area that is for these scum, particularly in comparison with other jails and probably even some of our own. But if he just keeps letting them beat him silly with it, that's his own fault.
Well you've highlighted the reason I continue to club baby seals--er--Republicans like they were baby seals--with this issue. Can anyone tell me why the administration is insisting on keeping their cards so close to their chest on this one? If there's nothing going on down there to be worried about, why not lay it all out where everyone can see?

It's part of a larger trend about this administration that bothers me to death. Transparency has been thrown out the window with this government, even while we preach it to those elsewhere. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if the government insists on hiding so much, it's because they have something to hide. If the guys down there were all enjoying A/C and trips to the pool to sunbathe with their Korans and prayer rugs, steak dinners and such, why not tell us about it rather than performing amazing feats of verbal acrobatics and political maneuvering to avoid the issue?
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
jmervyn said:
The only way Shrub can stop these hatchet jobs is to trumpet the resolution of the issues, rather than letting the Administration be slander meat all the time. If there's one thing above all others that I criticize about his leadership style, it is the inability to do the "fireside chat" PR routine. Perhaps he thinks there's too much water under the bridge at this point, but I would say it is never too late. Perhaps tonight's speech will mark a better PR 'openness' by the Administration. And perhaps piggies will be colliding with aircraft.
What do I expect from Bush tonight?

"Stuffs gettin better" ... "Stay the course" ... "We're making a democracy over there" ... "9/11" ... "We're trainin' troops" ... "Things are improvin" ... "I think about Iraq everyday" ... "We will leave as soon as possible" ... "Iraqization" ..."War on Terror" ... "Saddam bad, me good" ... "I am the War President" ... ..."Can't leave now" ... "Thank You and God Bless America"

<Gag>
 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
llad12 said:
What do I expect from Bush tonight?

"Stuffs gettin better" ... "Stay the course" ... "We're making a democracy over there" ... "9/11" ... "We're trainin' troops" ... "Things are improving" ... "I think about Iraq everyday" ... "We will leave as soon as possible" ... "Iraqization" ..."War on Terror" ... "Saddam bad, me good" ... "I am the War President" ... ..."Can't leave now" ... "Thank You and God Bless America"

<Gag>
Admit it Llad, you're secretly his speech writer, aren't you?
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
*buys jmerv a beer* There now, it's okay. All in good fun.
Thank goodness it's Guiness...

DrunkCajun said:
Well you've highlighted the reason I continue to club baby seals--er--Republicans like they were baby seals--with this issue. Can anyone tell me why the administration is insisting on keeping their cards so close to their chest on this one? If there's nothing going on down there to be worried about, why not lay it all out where everyone can see?

It's part of a larger trend about this administration that bothers me to death. Transparency has been thrown out the window with this government, even while we preach it to those elsewhere. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if the government insists on hiding so much, it's because they have something to hide. If the guys down there were all enjoying A/C and trips to the pool to sunbathe with their Korans and prayer rugs, steak dinners and such, why not tell us about it rather than performing amazing feats of verbal acrobatics and political maneuvering to avoid the issue?
Well, there is an issue of media filtering, no matter how much the left wants to deny it. That {Gerry Rivers} piece about not reporting buildings that don't burn is certainly apropos.

I tend not to consider Gov't workers as larger-than-life cartoonish villains, for obvious reasons. I also tend to be very willing to write off conduct problems as greed and laziness, rather than the EEEEVILLL which liberals tend to be obsessed with (projection, anyone?).

But even then, I am bothered by the same issues you are - and apparently that Ill is, though he & I disagree on a far more gut, basic level. Regardless of whether the Administration is doing everything above board, the clarity in discussing it is sadly lacking. Platitudes won't sway the populace. I suppose the Rove-tionale is that even talking about issues in an unscripted fashion, or allowing access to anything by uncontrolled agents, will do nothing but generate bad publicity.

But while I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that Rove is right, and that 9/11 was difficult only for liberals in that they couldn't beat the anti-American drum as passionately, there is a massive group of people that would have been a lot more supportive of Shrub if they had a little more visibility into the Executive Branch workings of late.
 
jmervyn said:
But while I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that Rove is right, and that 9/11 was difficult only for liberals in that they couldn't beat the anti-American drum as passionately
I find it a lot harder to buy. Anti-American is a pretty doggone strong dose of verbage, and I know at least in my case I scream as loudly as I do because hold an incredible admiration for our country and its system and I HATE to see it damaging itself and it's image. I suspect there are many liberals who feel this way. PS--I don't necessarily classify myself as liberal because while I agree with liberals on a lot of issues, I find myself disagreeing with them almost as much as I do the conservatives. I'm somewhere in that fictional middle ground.

there is a massive group of people that would have been a lot more supportive of Shrub if they had a little more visibility into the Executive Branch workings of late.
Aye, and frankly I'd tentatively be one of them. While I was not beating the pro-Bush drum in January of 2001, and I'll admit I was not thrilled in November of 2000 (or was it December by the time we finally got a result?), I was perfectly willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and buckle down for a Republican president. Unfortunately it didn't take very long for me to start wondering why so much was going on below decks. As things in this country got worse and we started sending our young men and women off to be beheaded, shot, killed, tortured, and worse, and the government seemed to still be talking out of both sides of its mouth and not saying anything out of either, I lost patience with it and am now well beyond disturbed.

It's one thing to be able to say, look, I see why he's doing what he's doing (and more to the point, I see what he's doing), and while I can't agree with it, I can't really find fault in it besides to say that it's not what I personally believe is right.

Unfortunately, I can't even say that. I don't know half of what he's doing much less why he's doing it, and whenever someone starts to dig to find out more, it's like putting a match to gunpowder.
 

PublicEnemy

Diabloii.Net Member
Syxx said:
When it comes to eliminating torture, USA has no credibility, and no moral leg to stand on. The US Governemt should stops its own use of torturous acts and abuse of human rights, before it preaches to rest of the world, otherwise we are just going to shake our heads in wonder at their hypocracy.

Regards
Syxx
Before criticizing their methods, ask yourself first who are the people who had been 'tortured'.Compared to what the tortured people did in Afghanistan or Iraq, torture in Guantanamo is sweet torture.
If you can provide a solution to stop torture worlwide, you are welcome,otherwise shut up.
 
PublicEnemy said:
Before criticizing their methods, ask yourself first who are the people who had been 'tortured'.Compared to what the tortured people did in Afghanistan or Iraq, torture in Guantanamo is sweet torture.
If you can provide a solution to stop torture worlwide, you are welcome,otherwise shut up.
Remember kids, it's okay to torture, as long as you can justify it to yourself. :thumbsup:
 

Syxx

Diabloii.Net Member
PublicEnemy said:
Before criticizing their methods, ask yourself first who are the people who had been 'tortured'.Compared to what the tortured people did in Afghanistan or Iraq, torture in Guantanamo is sweet torture.
If you can provide a solution to stop torture worlwide, you are welcome,otherwise shut up.
Hi PublicEnemy,

You seem a little peeved with me. Would you have accepted my comments better if I was myself an American, rather than a 'foreigner' ?

Who had been tortured ? In Gitmo, I would say innocent (until proven guilty) people, who haven't had their day in court (3 years and still counting), and that court being a rather bias military court. Does that sound like a fair situation to you ?

Isn't one of the foundations of US law... "Innocent until proven guilty". Or does this only apply to US citizens ? For the rest of the world, its watch out, else you'll be classed as an enemy combatant and screwed 6 ways to Sunday.

Sweet torture. There's no such thing. Sure there are a different degrees of torture from mild to extreme, but to my way of thinking all torture is bad. Is the sweet torture referring to making some Iraqi prisoners wear underwear on their head ? What about the Iraqi prisoners in body bags with rather suspicious black and blue marks on them ? Hardly anything sweet about that.

Oh and finally ... no I won't shut up. Who voted you god, to decided what others can and can't say on this board. If you don't like what I'm saying, fine, you are allowed your opinion, but please keep your tongue civil.

Regards
Syxx
 

DaviddeJong

Diabloii.Net Member
DaviddeJong said:
The US are not really the most convincing advocates of human rights these days.... and Bush is a hypocrite for pointing out these wrong-doings in other countries while condoning abuse against it's own captured "enemies of the state" (If the accusations about the prisoner-abuse in Gitmo and Abu Graib are true, but I guess that's proven beyond doubt, just the scale of things are not clear yet, I think).
Freemason said:
Yup, Pres. Bush is a hipocrite because he's won't say anything about Saddam's torture of millions. Not one peep about Hitler. Not one mention of Iran's abuses. Have you paid a lick of attention to anything? Saddam's torture was well laid out. Hitler is blasted whenever he comes up. Iran's abuses were condemned before, during and after their "elections". How dare you acuse the US of the same kinds of abuses? I know you don't have the cojones to say such a thing to our men returning home.
Other tortures in other countries in other times aren't the issue here: Bush is a hypocrite for condemning torture on the one hand when he knows his own men are guilty of the "same" thing.

Freemason said:
Of course not. Holland isn't the country to hate out of envy.
Well, I think Holland is envyable; we have a nice and quiet position in world-politics.....

DaviddeJong said:
I already admitted, comparing the US tortures (in Abu Graib and Gitmo) to those of (for instance) the nazi's (but the same goes for Pol Pot) is pretty harsh, both in severity and in systematic nature of it (in nazi-times).
Freemason said:
That's a weak apology. "Pretty harsh"? How about blatently trying to give our enemy more reason to cut the heads off our people? That's sedition. Look it up, it's punishable by death. Too bad nobody has the cojones to actually enforce it.
I "admitted" that to Jmervyn in a thread about Dick Durbin, he knows what I meant by it. If you don't, too bad. Your only sensible point is the one on the severity of the tortures (Saddam's torture (for instance) as compared to the US's), that's a good argument, I know that and I already mentioned that.... like in my quote ^-here.

DaviddeJong said:
But, yeah, I'll ridicule the US about it's human rights abuses..... because it's wrong and because Bush is a hypocrite by lecturing others on it, especially now!
Freemason said:
Meanwhile I shall look upon you as having absolutly NO sense of history or porportion.
You do that, we have a lousy education-system here in Holland, so you might even be right! :D

Freemason said:
Perhaps you need to be reminded that you don't speak German because of the US and UK. Don't ever forget that.
Yeah, I know, Holland was (and is) too weak to defend itself, so you Yanks and Brits had to save our asses..... Every morning when I cycle along the mass-graves from WWII in Oosterbeek, I think about that (well, not every morning, but it's close!).

Lest we forget.

Freemason said:
Thank you for tossing us that bone. I would be insulted but Holland isn't relevant enough.
I don't really know what you mean by that, but I think I should be insulted now! Not relevant?!?! What does that have to do with my posts and arguments?

David.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Syxx said:
Who had been tortured ? In Gitmo, I would say innocent (until proven guilty) people, who haven't had their day in court (3 years and still counting), and that court being a rather bias military court. Does that sound like a fair situation to you ?

Isn't one of the foundations of US law... "Innocent until proven guilty". Or does this only apply to US citizens ? For the rest of the world, its watch out, else you'll be classed as an enemy combatant and screwed 6 ways to Sunday.
Disregarding the discussion with PE, I think your assumptions here are badly flawed. It isn't your fault - there's so much media hype over this deal that I'd be amazed if a "foreigner" ever actually hears the U.S. position.

First & foremost, the Gitmo detainees are not innocent, nor are they necessarily "guilty". They sure as hellfire don't deserve a civilian U.S. trial, which is what so many liberals are pushing for; liberal U.S. lawyers were given a chance to defend them under the UCMJ guidance which they will eventually go to court under, and most of them refused. Why did these beacons of tolerance and justice refuse? They found it too 'restrictive' - i.e. they couldn't pull typical lawyer tricks that make criminal defense such a lucrative profession in the U.S. And for those that do accept such defense positions, well, they haven't had that great of a track record prior to Gitmo (Lynne Stewart) so they are under some scrutiny.

Secondly, yes, you better watch out - even if you were a U.S. citizen. If you are found in Iraq with an RPG or AK in your hand, surrounded by 10 or so of your closest smelly buddies with doo-rags on your heads, then you could easily wind up at Gitmo. Why? Because while an Iraqi could easily be a coerced hostage, a civilian caught up in the fight, or an old Saddam loyalist, you can be none of the above. Therefore, you are a foreign illegal combatant, not a soldier, not a partisan, not a civilian, but a probable terrorist - an anomaly as far as both UCMJ and the Geneva/Hague conventions go. The fact that Johnny Walker got off lightly was an affront to many people's sensibilities.

Lastly, there's this presumption that a U.S. military tribunal is inherently a secret kangaroo court. I tend to regard this opinion from the mouths of leftists as being projection - they're recalling Hollywierd representations, and vague recollections of various Communist trials. Unless we decide to turn these vermin over for a {mock} World Court trial at the Hague, they're ours and we need to deal with them. The UCMJ is a time-honored legal system, generally mirroring civilian law, and is certainly just as fair as civilian law (perhaps with fewer BS shenanigans than defense lawyers enjoy). Still, as Pat Leahy said, "American military justice is the best in the world and includes open trials, right to counsel, and judicial review." It often is regarded as favoring defendants more than civilian law, and is less secretive than the American grand jury. Here's a decent piece about it - http://writ.news.findlaw.com/student/20021218_carter.html
 
jmervyn said:
Lastly, there's this presumption that a U.S. military tribunal is inherently a secret kangaroo court. I tend to regard this opinion from the mouths of leftists as being projection - they're recalling Hollywierd representations, and vague recollections of various Communist trials.
We've been over this before, but as I've said--if it's not, then why keep it utterly and totally secret?

Unless we decide to turn these vermin over for a {mock} World Court trial at the Hague, they're ours and we need to deal with them. The UCMJ is a time-honored legal system, generally mirroring civilian law, and is certainly just as fair as civilian law (perhaps with fewer BS shenanigans than defense lawyers enjoy).
Great, then why not use it, and openly?

Still, as Pat Leahy said, "American military justice is the best in the world and includes open trials, right to counsel, and judicial review." It often is regarded as favoring defendants more than civilian law, and is less secretive than the American grand jury. Here's a decent piece about it - http://writ.news.findlaw.com/student/20021218_carter.html
Again, awesome. I'm sold. When do I get to read the court transcripts and decisions on these cases? Never, right? Because they're secret. So supersecret we can't know they're even happening.

WHY? What are we doing so wrong or illegally that they need to be so secret?
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
We've been over this before, but as I've said--if it's not, then why keep it utterly and totally secret?



Great, then why not use it, and openly?



Again, awesome. I'm sold. When do I get to read the court transcripts and decisions on these cases? Never, right? Because they're secret. So supersecret we can't know they're even happening.

WHY? What are we doing so wrong or illegally that they need to be so secret?
You're forgetting something I rammed down your throat a few threads ago - they're not secret, nor can they be protected forever. Open society & all that? FOIA disclosure already turned some of the proceedings up. All the rest will be publicly available **at some point**, with a committee decision required to continue keeping them secret (and a review of the redacted stuff, I believe), within 50 years. In the meantime, the left wants this crap spewed across Al Jazeera right away, as if the detailed hour-long expose on U.S. border insecurity isn't enough. And you wonder why the right regards the left as tatamount to a third column. Find another issue.

Might I suggest the timeframe in actually bringing the detainees to the tribunal? The interrogations of these scumbags may take a substantial amount of time, but they ought to have been able to figure out who's important and who's just a spear (bomb) carrier. Try the spear carriers, sentence them for their obvious "guilt" (bearing arms against the U.S. as an illegal combatant, which will basically be a hand-slap sentence of detention). Then either release them to their host countries or continue their detention as time served against their sentence. As it is, we've been releasing the spear carriers willy-nilly, without this due process, which is where Gonzalez got that statistic about the number who have rejoined the fray... and that was not a smokescreen.

Oh, yeah, if you're honestly interested in the topic, you might be interested in these accounts - they might burn the eyes of true leftists, but others will be safe.
What I saw at Gitmo
Mothering Terrorists at Gitmo
 
Top