Breaking News: Bush Personally Authorized Torture

[monkspider]

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=17216&c=206

NEW YORK -- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Also released by the ACLU today are a slew of other records including a December 2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the Defense Department as "torture" and a June 2004 "Urgent Report" to the Director of the FBI that raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up.
[snip]

The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists. The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from "On Scene Commander--Baghdad" to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized.

If this turns out to be true, this could really sour Bush's upcoming coronation. It is absolutely shameful that the president of the United States, the so-called leader of the free world, would authorize torture.

[Dis]

ACLU is a liberal biased oganization

and it would have been useful if they released this information before the election.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

ACLU

[chequita guevara]

Can an Executive Order directly contravene U.S. law?

[Kuciwalker]

No.

[chequita guevara]

So if this is true, Congress could theoretically impeach him and remove him from office.

I don't expect this to happen, since the House Republicans would never do such a thing.

[Kuciwalker]

They can impeach him for anything they want.

[Datajack Franit]

Those poor harmless men.. they only blow themselves into crowder marketplaces, kidnap people and behead them.. they sure don´t deserve this

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They can impeach him for anything they want.

Only high crimes and misdemeanors.

Of course, the counter argument is does this constitute torture.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Those poor harmless men.. they only blow themselves into crowder marketplaces, kidnap people and behead them.. they sure don´t deserve this

Cuz everyone the soldiers pick up is a terrorist.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Only high crimes and misdemeanors.

Which, conveniently, are terms defined by Congress.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Cuz everyone the soldiers pick up is a terrorist.

Duh. If they weren't guilty, God wouldn't have let us arrest them.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Duh. If they weren't guilty, God wouldn't have let us arrest them.

I'm confused which side are you talking about here?

The evil terrorists or the glorious freedom-loving liberators?

[Datajack Franit]

Cuz everyone the soldiers pick up is a terrorist

I don´t recall the US soldiers arresting any gay flowerist so far

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by el freako
I'm confused which side are you talking about here?

The evil terrorists or the glorious freedom-loving liberators?

It's us or them. Which side are you on?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
I don´t recall the US soldiers arresting any gay flowerist so far

Have arrested a lot of people for being suspected of being involved. That means someone that didn't like them denounced them or that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or that they wwere caught being up to no good. The first two do not preclude the person wasn't a terrorist, but they also don't mean he is.

As the revalations from Abu Graib came out, one of the things that were learned about was that a lot of people who were innocent were getting picked up.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit


I don´t recall the US soldiers arresting any gay flowerist so far

Um, as many as 90% of the detainees at Abu Graib were wrongly arrested.

[Lorizael]

You know what all the hundreds of thousands of US soldiers in Iraq are doing?

[Theben]

I can't believe Rove or Cheney would let Dubya do something as PR-destroying as this before the election.

I'm not saying Shrub would have wanted to. Need more proff.

[chequita guevara]

It depends on when the EO was written. I'd wager it was done in the wake of 9/11, and not late last year. All we have right now are references to the EO, not the EO itself.

[Patroklos]

Um, as many as 90% of the detainees at Abu Graib were wrongly arrested.

You want to even attempt to back that up?

And knowing you, are any of the "sources" you might pick going to attempt to back that up?

When did CBS's poster boy start working for the ACLU? Or is this just a copy cat?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You want to even attempt to back that up?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGLC6JEQ71.DTL

Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70 to 90 percent of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year "had been arrested by mistake," according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.

[Patroklos]

HA,

Your support is five words from a Red Cross "confidential report" (that happens to be public???), the rest of which is not available, which itself doesn't quote or even produce the so called intelligence report.

No names, dates, or any information about any of these documents, and oh yeah only available on that minor news site.

And when did "70 to 90 percent" = "90"?

You post amounts to a spin on a spin on a spin based on nothing.

[Odin]

I think I'm gonna be sick...

I hope this gets out in the mainstream media without conservative spin, if it does bush is toast, if the repubs refuse to impeach him despite public pressure, the voters will slaughter the republicans in '06.

[KrazyHorse]

Weakest rebuttal ever.

[Shi Huangdi]

"the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." "

This isn't torture.

[Ted Striker]

monkspider has it right

Even further, this information has been out there for over 6 months already, probably longer than that.

Even though the ACLU can give the report less credibility, the order was indeed issued by the Executive Branch. Bascially the goal was to see how far the formal definition of "torture" could be stetched and still be sellable to the American people.


You guys are all wondering why I hate Bush so much now?

It's orders like this. A formal declaration of a policy which is not only immoral, it's also impractical to the point of being alarmingly counterproductive.

9/11 didn't give us a blank license to see how much of an ******* we can be to people.

Utterly disgusting.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Odin
I think I'm gonna be sick...

I hope this gets out in the mainstream media without conservative spin, if it does bush is toast, if the repubs refuse to impeach him despite public pressure, the voters will slaughter the republicans in '06.

you mistakenly believe americans care about suspected militants in the middle east.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." "

This isn't torture.

It's torture, plain and simple

Secondly, this kind of precedent being passed down from the most powerful man in the world, leads to a trickle down effect and a formal culture of making torture acceptable.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." "

This isn't torture.

Would you want to be subjected to some of that?