Bush admin knew about and approved of torture: ACLU Calling for Special Prosecutor.

[Dan.Linehan]

Bush admitted to ABC News Friday night that he knew about and approved of torture. ACLU has collected the detailed autopsies of two dozen men who died from torture while in US custody, and is now recommending a special prosecutor.

American Civil Liberties Union : Bush Admits To Knowledge of Torture Authorization by Top Advisers

The American Civil Liberties Union is calling on Congress to demand an independent prosecutor to investigate possible violations by the Bush administration of laws including the War Crimes Act, the federal Anti-Torture Act, and federal assault laws.

“No one in the executive branch of government can be trusted to fairly investigate or prosecute any crimes since the head of every relevant department, along with the president and vice president, either knew or participated in the planning and approval of illegal acts,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Congress cannot look the other way; it must demand an independent investigation and independent prosecutor.”

[Dave Kaminski]

And what were we trying to impeach Clinton for? The inaction of the judicial system is disheartening.

[PianoManGidley]

Of course he'll admit it now, because he's got less than a year left in his Presidency, and he knows that anything of this magnitude would take so long just for the prosecution to put together that he'll be out of office by then anyway...so he can pretty much own up to anything by this point and not worry about how it'll affect the rest of his Presidency.

[Amadeus]

What is the point of this post? He knew about the torture of nuns? He knew about the torture of children? He knew about the torture of your mother? Oh, he knew about the torture of proven terrorist who's life mission was to kill our men and women in uniform trying to fight for the freedom of a country that is not their own? They tortured them to get information that could save the lives of Iraqi civilians and/or our soldiers. Do you have a problem with this? I don't. What, he didn't get the approval of empty suits in Washington who's only care is to get reelected this year? Again I ask, what is the point of this post?

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

What is the point of this post?

To inform forum members that Bush admitted to committing war crimes.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

He knew about the torture of nuns?

So, are you implying that nuns are less deserving of torture than Iraqi citizens? Why?

Originally Posted by Amadeus

He knew about the torture of children?

Sure, the number of childrens causalities from Bush's war is easily in the hundreds of thousands.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Oh, he knew about the torture of proven terrorist who's life mission was to kill our men and women in uniform trying to fight for the freedom of a country that is not their own? They tortured them to get information that could save the lives of Iraqi civilians and/or our soldiers. Do you have a problem with this? I don't.

Al-Qaeda isn't even in Iraq, first off.

But if you're referring to the insurgency, check out this little gem of info:

A September 2006 poll of both Sunnis and Shias found that 71% of Iraqis wanted the U.S. to leave within a year, with 65% favoring an immediate pullout and 77% voicing suspicion that the U.S. wanted to keep permanent bases in Iraq. 61% approved of attacks on U.S. forces.

So, technically you could grab any Iraqi citizen (we do) and torture them (we do) because there is a 61% change they are for attacking Americans anyway.

Hmm, I wonder why 61% of the population is pro-attacking Americans? Oh, that doesn't matter, let's just call them all terrorists and torture them! USA! USA!

Do you have a problem with this? I don't.

Oh, no wait, actually I do. Grabbing random citizens and torturing them (to death!) -- probably not the best idea.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

What, he didn't get the approval of empty suits in Washington who's only care is to get reelected this year?

LOL. Those darn suits and them not liking war crimes!

[Josephus Magnus]

Originally posted by Dan.Linehan

A September 2006 poll of both Sunnis and Shias found that 71% of Iraqis wanted the U.S. to leave within a year, with 65% favoring an immediate pullout and 77% voicing suspicion that the U.S. wanted to keep permanent bases in Iraq. 61% approved of attacks on U.S. forces.

This is funny, come on now, a public opinion poll. What do the leaders of this fledgling democracy want?

What is the best course of action for stability and peace in Iraq? Just leave. I don't think so.

[Amadeus]

So basically Dan you are accusing our soldiers on the ground, our generals, our president of just pulling anyone with a pulse on the ground of Iraq and torturing them for no reason. Maybe you should seek citizenship somewhere else if you are so ashamed of your country. You would have been against our involvement in WW1, WW2, the Korean War, or our initial liberation of Kuwait.

[Brutha]

They tortured them to get information that could save the lives of Iraqi civilians and/or our soldiers. Do you have a problem with this? I don't.

When you have those pictures going through Al Jahsira don't you think it could motivate a few terrorist to blow up a few American soliders?

he knew about the torture of proven terrorist

The people who get tortured are not "proven" terrorists.
They didn't trial those people, to etablish whether they are terrorists.
Sure they have someone who tells them Joe is a terrorist before they torture Joe. But when the person who gave them the information was tortored and thought their is no other way than to tell false things or the person got a bit of money for the information, you can easily get a supected terrorist who is not guilty of anything.

You would have been against our involvement in WW1, WW2, the Korean War, or our initial liberation of Kuwait.

In those war nobody got tortured by US troops that had orders to do so.
The US didn't violate international law in those conflicts.
In general the rule of law is an important ideal in western society.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

I have a problem with the fact that the US claims to be a bastion of morality such that we know what's best for other countries, yet we are engaged in the same brutality that we claim is the provenance of terrorists.

Either we have standards or we don't. We cannot decry the barbaric nature of what terrorists do while commiting acts of barbary ourselves.

Soon any US citizen will be able to be taken into custody, held without trial and tortured on the grounds of "protecting the US" (if they aren't already?). We have already lost enough of our freedoms at the hand of our own government -- NOT the terrorists -- our acceptance of the torture of other human beings (even terrorists) is a slipery slope.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

So basically Dan you are accusing our soldiers on the ground, our generals, our president of just pulling anyone with a pulse on the ground of Iraq and torturing them for no reason.

Let's see what our generals are saying about it then.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Maybe you should seek citizenship somewhere else if you are so ashamed of your country.

I'm not ashamed of my country at all, make no mistake. I'm ashamed of the war criminals in office, and their apologists.

[Amadeus]

Dan unfortunately this article you are posting loses about 99 percent respect and credibility because it highlights the ACLU calling for a special prosecutor. This ACLU is the same organization that defends such organizations as NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) which believes that grown men should be able to date and have sexual relationships with children. They've also defended illegal alien cop killers, child molestors, and other scum of the earth.

[Dan.Linehan]

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?

In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release.

That was a free speech case. Unpopular speech is fully protected by the constitution.

What does that have to do with torture, a war crime?

[Amadeus]

What does this have to do with a "war crime"? Well you are assuming that a war crime was commited. No one has been prosecuted for tortoring civilians. Again you are citing an organization that defends NAMBLA. I'm sorry but no one has a right to form an organization to support sexual relations with minors. Everyone who participates in NAMBLA should spend 5 years in prison and get the death penalty if they participate in a relationship with children. The same scum that spends their resources and time defending child molestors is the same scum that is going after the Bush administration. I'm looking at the kind of company that the ACLU keeps and defends so they lose ALL credibility in my eyes. Dan are you a member of the ACLU? Are you transexual? Are you one of those cowards who blocks the streets of San Francisco with your body with a poster saying "War for Oil"?

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

What does this have to do with a "war crime"? Well you are assuming that a war crime was commited.

Bush admitted to advancing a policy of torture. Torture is a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

No one has been prosecuted for tortoring civilians.

Which is why the ACLU is recommending a special prosecutor. To prosecute.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

I'm sorry but no one has a right to form an organization to support sexual relations with minors.

The freedom of assembly is granted by the first amendment. It guarantees that people have the freedom to take part in any gatherings that they wish.

So, when you say "no one has the right to form an organization to support..." that's not correct. Everyone has the right to assembly.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Everyone who participates in NAMBLA should spend 5 years in prison

Why stop there? I am sure there are other organizations you don't like. How about Planned Parenthood? The Electronic Freedom Foundation? Code Pink?

Originally Posted by Amadeus

The same scum that spends their resources and time defending child molestors is the same scum that is going after the Bush administration.

So you think we should legalize torture internationally?

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Dan are you a member of the ACLU?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Are you transexual?

That's an interesting question, considering we are talking about Bush committing war crimes. Do you think transsexuals are scum as well? Do you think they should get five years in jail?

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Are you one of those cowards who blocks the streets of San Francisco with your body with a poster saying "War for Oil"?

Would you allow your best friend to be tortured? Your family members?

Why would you call protesters cowards? Wouldn't doing nothing be more cowardly?

[Amadeus]

Dan when you block a public street protesting anything you are potentially preventing an ambulance with a person needing immediate medical care from getting the attention they need. The kind of people that are in the ACLU do these kind of things. The same people (in the ACLU) who say they are for freedom of speech on one hand decide to stay silent when it comes to freedom to bare arms on the other. At the beginning of your post you should have just stated that you were a member of the ACLU, that way we could have just put everything you written in perspective.

OMG, Dan I just looked at your profile and it says you are from the Bay area!!! lol I was using San Fran as an example, and sure enough you are from there. They must breed left-winged Clintonics over there. Have you had any run-ins with any of the homeless window shield cleaning bums you guys so rigorously defend? You know they are destroying your city because potential tourists don't want to have to step over a drunk with their children in order to go into a shop? Yet you people think that the government has the obligation to take from productive people to give to those who want to be takers their whole lives. Do you listen to Michael Savage much by the way?

[Brutha]

Are you one of those cowards who blocks the streets of San Francisco with your body with a poster saying "War for Oil"?

Why do you think that they are cowards, do you think that they should blow up some recrutment office to prove that they have the guts to take arms in their hand? What is cowardish about peaceful demonstration?

What does this have to do with a "war crime"? Well you are assuming that a war crime was commited. No one has been prosecuted for tortoring civilians.

To make it a war crime it is irrelevant whether those who were tortured were civilians or weren't.

They've also defended illegal alien cop killers, child molestors, and other scum of the earth.

I thought that America was a country were everyone is supposed to get a fair trial. Defending people who have done bad things is part of giving everyone a fair trial.
That principle is called rule of law.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Dan when you block a public street protesting anything you are potentially preventing an ambulance with a person needing immediate medical care from getting the attention they need. The kind of people that are in the ACLU do these kind of things. The same people (in the ACLU) who say they are for freedom of speech on one hand decide to stay silent when it comes to freedom to bare arms on the other. At the beginning of your post you should have just stated that you were a member of the ACLU, that way we could have just put everything you written in perspective.

OMG, Dan I just looked at your profile and it says you are from the Bay area!!! lol I was using San Fran as an example, and sure enough you are from there. They must breed left-winged Clintonics over there. Have you had any run-ins with any of the homeless window shield cleaning bums you guys so rigorously defend? You know they are destroying your city because potential tourists don't want to have to step over a drunk with their children in order to go into a shop? Yet you people think that the government has the obligation to take from productive people to give to those who want to be takers their whole lives. Do you listen to Michael Savage much by the way?

Why all the assumptions and insults? It doesn't seem necessary. We are talking about our president APPROVING TORTURE!!! This has nothing to do with transsexuals, protesters or the ACLU's past. The real world isn't an episode of 24. We can't/shouldn't just torture anybody who is captured in war unless they are a big wig PROVEN terrorist who has vital information on an imminent attack. It could just be some guy defending his land who ends up being tortured when he probably does not know anything. The USA, as the world's sole superpower (at the moment) should be setting the right example. Think of the children (the future). What do you think about a 16 year old kid who constantly sees the US soldiers going through his town and killing people or capturing them? He sees no positive results. One day his father is captured while defending his home, and then the kid hears about our president (who's supposed to be doing this for peace) approving torture. Wouldn't that cause you to go up in arms and join the "bad guys"? There's a reason why terrorism is growing and not shrinking since we started the war, and things like this are exactly why.