You may like to practice hypocrisy, I prefer not to. Especially when our soldiers and citizens are the ones feeling its effects. The ridiculous logic is comparing hurting ourselves (jumping off a bridge) versus hurting them. I'm sorry if the logic escapes you.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

In a nutshell, your opinion "It's okay to torture them, because they are torturing us." In other words, I'm going to do it, because THEY are doing it. So, if THEY threw themselves off a bridge, following your logic, WE should throw ourselves off that very same bridge.

Also, can you tell me approximately how many of "us" have been tortured by Al-Q (be careful, I said Al-Q, NOT splinter groups) versus the hundreds and hundreds of "them" that have been tortured and killed by "us"....Also, if you could provide the links that would be helpful...

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

because you consistently fail to use it. Sure, let's start with Flight 93.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

I totally agree with Rebellion. What some of you on here want to do is this: you want to let the terrorists have a free reign to do whatever they are going to do.....including cutting off innocent American civilians heads while they are alive. BUT you want us to conduct our part of the war abiding by the rules of the Genevation Convention....which BTW, applies to countries.

Even though we are NOT legally bound in this war to the rules of the Geneva Convention.....I can guarantee you that we are treating them FAR better than they are treating our prisoners. We do NOT have a policy that says to TORTURE anybody. And those American citizens who believe that......ALL because they hate George W. Bush.....disgust me.

__________________
“I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” — Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007

Colour us all AMAZED......

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

I dont complain now. I expect it. It's an empty threat because it is par for the course.

So you agree that we should torture and abuse. According to your logic we suspend the Geneva conventions whenever we see fit. In other words America should follow the examples of terrorists.

Why are you so hung up on whether Bush’s policies (which lead to torture) can be proven to exist? You agree with them anyway, proven or otherwise.

Acknowledging that Al Qaeda doesn't come under the rules of the Geneva Convention doesn't equate to a policy of torture. It is simply FACT. The Geneva Convention rules came about as a treaty between nations who signed on that said.....there will be certain rules we agree to abide by concerning your military personnel that we capture.....and vice versa. The thought being that they would all be treated with a certain amount of care as long as those rules were abided by.

Not so with Al Qaeda. They did not sign. They had no intention of following any such rules. And we were not bound by them in this case either. Nor should we be. This is not to say that that means we have a policy in place to torture. But I can guarantee you that if they capture a guy they know has knowlege of an upcoming attack, not too many people are going to condemn them if they have to get a bit rough to get the information. I know that I certainly don't. If wearing them down by making them stand on one foot while holding jugs with their arms extended does the trick....then more power to them!!

__________________
“I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” — Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007

The Bush supporters seem to be saying that you can’t prove Bush’s policies exist, but if they did exists their all for it. This is hilarious.

The policies to suspend the Geneva conventions did exist. There are several publications that have written about it. So why are you Bush supporters being so spineless. Why don’t you just come out and say it, you agree with the Bush policies, which spun, out of control and lead to wide spread abuse and torture. .

What are you afraid of?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun8.html

Washington Post.com

MEMO ON TORTURE DRAWS FOCUS TO BUSH

Aide Says President Set Guidelines for Interrogations, Not Specific Techniques

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.

The document provided legal guidance for the CIA, which crafted new, more aggressive techniques for its operatives in the field. McClellan called the memo a historic or scholarly review of laws and conventions concerning torture. "The memo was not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or techniques," he said. "It was analytical."

You must have stood on one foot too long yourself. My opening post on this thread as well as other publications I’ve quoted indicated broken bones, cigarette burns, isolation while being exposed to extreme temperatures, beatings and deaths. CIA Agents, The Red Cross and others have reported these incidents. Also it’s amazing how you neglected nude pyramids and being exposed to sexual acts, which all the world knows about from the Abu Graib torture stories. You truly live in a world of self-deception’ thinking that we only specialize in making prisoners stand on one foot.

You’ve hit the nail right on the head here. The fact is, once the administration suspends Geneva Convention guidelines you have no control over what will happen next. We didn’t just abuse Al Quaida detainees (another distortion of yours) we abused Iraqis. The fact that abuse and torture policies migrated from Gitmo to Iraq and to other locations proves that Bush’s policies spun out of control. The fact that we are sentencing the guards from Abu Graib is proof that lack of hard and fast guidelines and training, leads to atrocities.

What you’re terrified to admit, is that many more abuses stories are breaking out

You’ve also missed another point. The Gonzales Memo stated that international treaties might be suspended under certain circumstances. This means we can also torture signatories to the Geneva agreements

The Abu Graib abuses and other abuse events lead back to policies rolled out by the White House, The Justice Dept and the Defense Dept

Except, as usual Bush takes no responsibility for his actions. That's why he says only a handful of bad eggs committed the crimes. With Bush, I smell a rotten egg.